Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[MR. SPEAKER in the Chair]

Oral Answers to Questions — WALES

Mr. Gareth Wardell: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I am sorry to delay our proceedings, but I seek your guidance on a procedural matter. I tabled a question to the Secretary of State for Wales, which was transferred to the Secretary of State for Transport. It initially appeared as question No. 1 on the Order Paper. I seek your guidance, on two points. First, is it procedurally correct that it should now appear as question No. 16 on today's Order Paper? Secondly, if we reach that question today, will the Secretary of Transport, or one of his Ministers, be here to answer it?

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Gentleman is correct to say that his question now appears as question No. 16 on the Order Paper. I am not responsible for the transfer of questions. However, if we reach question No. 16 today, the Minister should be here to answer it.

Oral Answers to Questions — Regional Policy

Mr. Roy Hughes: asked the Secretary of State for Wales what representations he has received from Gwent county council concerning the Government's review of regional policy; what reply he has sent; and if he will make a statement.

The Secretary of State for Wales (Mr. Nicholas Edwards): The council has written to me about the results of the review as they affect Gwent. My reply makes clear the Government's commitment to a more cost-effective regional policy concentrating on the needy areas and the creation of jobs. Gwent will continue to be well placed to compete for new investment.

Mr. Hughes: Does the Secretary of State appreciate that Gwent cannot understand the logic of cutting £60 million from the regional aid budget for Wales merely to provide tax concessions for those in the south-east of England? As a result of the changes, will there not be increased competition from Bristol, Swindon and the west midlands? How on earth are we going to put those 180,000 people back to work?

Mr. Edwards: Many of the representations that we have received, including those from the Wales TUC, believe that financial assistance should be related to jobs rather than wasted on very large capital projects without any consideration of the relationship to jobs. We are

making substantial savings by not financing the renewal of plant, which should be funded by companies out of their normal expenditure. Gwent will be well able to compete, not only because of the many advantages that it has for incoming industry, but because its northern part has the top level of assistance available. Elsewhere, through selective assistance, it will be able to offer a very attractive package of aid.

Sir Raymond Gower: I agree that it is desirable that regional assistance should be geared to jobs rather than to capital exapansion. However, will the new arrangements be open to any reconsideration should the worst criticisms of certain people be realised in any respect?

Mr. Edwards: The Government will always keep the progress of their policies under review. The cost-per-job limits under the revised system are about twice the average level of investment by companies. Therefore, there should be plenty of scope for significant investment, even with those cost-per-job limits.

Mr. Gareth Wardell: As Newport, in the county of Gwent, has been demoted from development area to intermediate area status as a result of the recent changes and has consequently lost its regional development grant, can the right hon. Gentleman tell us what percentage of Gwent's working population were in receipt of, or eligible for, regional development grant before the changes, as well as giving the current figures? We know that in Wales the cut has been from 90 to 35 per cent.

Mr. Edwards: In making that last statement the hon. Gentleman has shown that he does not understand that we are now dealing with a two rather than a three-tier system. Therefore, such a comparison is not relevant. I cannot give the hon. Gentleman the specific figures that he seeks, but if he tables a question I shall try to provide the information. Since 1979 more than £23 million of selective assistance has been given in the Newport travel-to-work area for projects valued at more than £166 million in order to provide about 7,900 new jobs. That shows the considerable value of selective assistance in attracting new investment.

Oral Answers to Questions — Coal Industry Dispute

Mr. Ray Powell: asked the Secretary of State for Wales if, since his reply of 10 December, he has met the chairman of the National Coal Board to discuss the current state of the dispute in the coal industry.

Mr. Nicholas Edwards: I met the chairman of the National Coal Board on 14 January.

Mr. Powell: I thank the Secretary of State for his reply. It is encouraging to know that he has at last met the chairman. On 10 December he said that he had not met the chairman since the start of the dispute, on 6 March, until that day. Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that in Ogwr borough numerous jobs have been lost as a result of the mining dispute? The right hon. Gentleman has said that no jobs have been lost since March. We know that jobs have been lost. The right hon. Gentleman should have taken an initiative to try to resolve the dispute. I hope that he will attend a meeting to be convened with the Secretary of State for Energy this week.

Mr. Edwards: I never said that jobs would not be lost. Indeed, I always said that other industries, notably the


transport industry, were likely to be affected by this damaging strike. That is why I have urged the hon. Gentleman to press the members of the National Union of Mineworkers to return to work. I shall attend the meeting with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Energy later this week and listen to the points made at that meeting.

Mr. Anderson: Is the Secretary of State aware of the depth of depression caused in Wales by his economic policies? For example, the indices of house prices show that we alone in Wales had no increase in house prices over the past year. Is it therefore surprising—

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman's question does not have much to do with the chairman of the NCB.

Mr. Anderson: Is it therefore surprising that miners are fighting for their jobs and their communities, given that background of depression? Will the right hon. Gentleman look at the definition of "economic pits" to ensure that social considerations, such as the future of our mining communities, are taken into account?

Mr. Edwards: I shall be happy—and so will the NCB—to look at the definition of "economic pits" if Mr. Scargill is also prepared to look at and discuss the definition of economic pits and to negotiate about them. His refusal to do so consistently throughout the dispute has got us to the present situation.

Mr. Hubbard-Miles: Is my right hon. Friend aware that at the commencement of the strike the miners of south Wales voted 70 per cent. against taking industrial action, and that, had the NUM leadership listened to the grass roots of the nining industry, there would have been no strike?

Mr. Edwards: It is deplorable that we still have not had a ballot, but 40 per cent. of the members of the NUM have voted with their feet and gone back to work, and another 1,700 members of the union returned to work today. That is why there is apparently a sudden interest among the leaders of the NUM to negotiate. I hope that they will negotiate about the real issues that are now before us.

Mr. Barry Jones: The Secretary of State's attitude is not encouraging, given the importance of the dispute and the critical situation that it has now reached. Will the Government encourage a negotiated, principled settlement that will heal divisions in our society? Does not the whole nation look to the Prime Minister and the Cabinet to display statemanship in their attitude to a dispute that encompasses much suffering?

Mr. Edwards: Of course we shall encourage a negotiated settlement. I think that there have been seven rounds of negotiations so far, in which Mr. Scargill has not moved one inch. That is why we are in our present position. The NCB has moved. It made it clear in its negotiations with NACODS that it could reach a settlement that offered a sensible future for the industry and its further development.

Oral Answers to Questions — Aberystwyth (Ministerial Visit)

Mr. Geraint Howells: asked the Secretary of State for Wales if he has any plans to make an official visit to his Department's offices in Aberystwyth during the next three months.

Mr. Nicholas Edwards: Not at present.

Mr. Howells: I am sure that the Secretary of State is well aware of the fact that most of his staff at his Department's offices in Aberystwyth speak Welsh. To safeguard the future of the Welsh language, has the right hon. Gentleman any plans to update the 1967 legislation dealing with that language?

Mr. Edwards: I have no plans at present for changing the legislation.

Dr. Roger Thomas: Although the right hon. Gentleman is perhaps fighting shy of visiting Aberystwyth, will he pluck up enough courage to go there to see at first hand the dairy farmers of west Wales, who are in an especially severe plight and who might be able to influence him to go to Brussels for the next round of negotiations?

Mr. Edwards: I do not need to go to Aberystwyth to meet the dairy farmers of west Wales, because for many months I have met them almost every week, and I am fully aware of their views. As recently as last Friday I met the leaders of the Farmers Union of Wales and the National Farmers Union.

Mr. D. E. Thomas: Is the right hon. Gentleman unwilling to go to Aberystwyth because of the number of posts lost in the Department's offices in Aberystwyth since he became Secretary of State?

Mr. Edwards: The hon. Gentleman is wrong to suggest that I am not willing to go to Aberystwyth. I frequently go there. I simply do not have any plans to visit my Department there during the next three months.

Dr. Marek: Does the Secretary of State accept that centralisation of various public offices in Cardiff, which is a long way from mid and north Wales, is unhealthy? Will the right hon. Gentleman give the House an absolute assurance that the Welsh Office agricultural department will remain in Aberystwyth?

Mr. Edwards: I have no plans to change the present arrangements. A large part of the agricultural department is situated in Aberystwyth. It is important that members of the agricultural department should be in close touch with other offices during the other important Government negotiations that occur in Cardiff and London. That is why we have the present arrangements. The Forestry Commission plans to concentrate its management on Aberystwyth.

Oral Answers to Questions — Coal Industry Dispute

Mr. Raffan: asked the Secretary of State for Wales if he will estimate the damage to the Welsh economy caused by the miners' strike.

Mr. D. E. Thomas: asked the Secretary of State for Wales if he will make a statement on the effect of the mining dispute on the economy in Wales; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Nicholas Edwards: While the economy in general is coping well, there is an increasing impact on those sectors which serve the coal industry and on small businesses in mining areas.

Mr. Raffan: Does my right hon. Friend agree that, because the latest CSO statistics show that the miners'


strike is depressing economic growth by 1·5 per cent., and because every aspect of economic policy should be directed towards the reduction of unemployment, as the shadow Chancellor said last week, it is extremely damaging, totally illogical and contemptibly hypocritical for the Labour party to support a strike that prevents the creation of desperately needed new jobs in Wales?

Mr. Edwards: I agree with my hon. Friend. I suppose that one could say that it is self-indulgent for Opposition Members who take that view to put forward their own luxurious opinions, attitudes and activities before considering the real impact of their actions.

Mr. D. E. Thomas: When the Secretary of State meets the Church leaders later this week, will he bear in mind what we prayed for together at the beginning of this sitting? Will he then listen with a contrite heart and take account of the attempts by Church leaders to put forward the objective will of the Welsh people for a consensus and a Welsh solution to this dispute?

Mr. Edwards: I shall listen carefully to the leaders of the Welsh Church and ascertain whether they have any proposals which are likely to forward the negotiations. At the moment I do not see how another general review of the future of the mining industry — on top of the three reviews that we have had in comparatively recent times—will help. I hope I shall hear that the Welsh Church leaders will press for a ballot and for the leadership of the NUM to negotiate and consider the industry's future. As always, I shall listen carefully to the Church leaders.

Mr. Harvey: Will my right hon. Friend guarantee that no further concessions will be made on the already generous terms on offer to the miners?

Mr. Edwards: It is certainly true that the NCB has moved a considerable way. It is difficult to understand how the NCB can go beyond the point that it reached in its agreement with NACODS. If we are to have a settlement, we need a willingness by Mr. Scargill and the leadership of the NUM to face the reality of discussing economic and uneconomic pits.

Mr. Coleman: Will the right hon. Gentleman dismiss from his mind what his hon. Friend the Member for Clwyd, South-West (Mr. Harvey) has just said? Giving him the benefit of the doubt on his earlier answer about his concern for the economy of Wales, does the right hon. Gentleman agree that, with his responsibilities for Wales, it is time that he put pressure on the Prime Minister to ensure that negotiations take place?

Mr. Edwards: What is needed is pressure from the hon. Gentleman, and all others who may have contact with or influence on the NUM, to ensure that negotiations can take place on a basis that includes consideration whether uneconomic pits should close and acceptance of the fact that there should be a ballot of the members.

Mr. Grist: Would my right hon. Friend care to estimate how ready the British Steel Corporation will be to resume its former level of orders from the South Wales coal board when the strike is over?

Mr. Edwards: That will be a matter for the industry, but there is no doubt that the strike will have damaged markets. It will almost certainly also have changed the transport pattern for coal in the area, to the long-term disadvantage of British Rail and its employees.

Mr. Allen McKay: Has not the mineworkers' leader already said that he is willing and waiting for negotiations to start without any set agenda whatever or anything being fixed beforehand? In view of that, and the fact that the national executive as a whole would take part in the negotiations, have we not reached the stage in this disastrous strike when the Government should put pressure on the National Coal Board to get negotiations under way?

Mr. Edwards: I welcome the fact that Mr. Scargill has apparently said that he is willing to negotiate. However, I note that he has said nothing at all about being willing to negotiate on the question of uneconomic pits. Without willingness to talk about that, there is no hope of progress.

Mr. Terlezki: We are suffering from a self-inflicted political strike brought about by Mr. Scargill and his storm-troopers. Will the order from France before the strike began for over 600,000 tonnes of Welsh coal now be lost, or could we recapture the market and keep the economy going in south Wales?

Mr. Edwards: Markets will certainly be damaged, but we must all hope that the NCB will be able to regain those markets. With a quick return to work I hope that — depending, of course, on exchange rates and our competitiveness—we will regain a good share of world markets. However, our chance of that grows fainter with every day of the dispute.

Mr. Barry Jones: The Welsh miners know that since 1979 unemployment in Wales has increased by 125 per cent. and that it is set to increase further. Is it not true that pit closures in mining valleys have major social consequences? What are the Government doing to speed up negotiations that could lead to the end of this damaging dispute?

Mr. Edwards: I understand the concern of the miners. Pits have been closing in large numbers for many years, under Governments of both parties. Indeed, fewer pits have been closed in south Wales under the present Government than under our predecessors.
The essential facts are that Mr. Scargill decided to take his men out on strike without a ballot, and through seven rounds of negotiations he has refused to move. Without some willingness on Mr. Scargill's part to consider the realities of the coal industry, it is difficult to see how we can reach a settlement. However, I hope that the clear desire for negotiations by many people, which is evident this week, reinforced by the fact that the miners themselves are voting by going back to work, will take us to the point where there can be a settlement.

Oral Answers to Questions — Drugs Use

Mr. Barry Jones: asked the Secretary of State for Wales if he will make a statement concerning the increase in the use of heroin and other drugs in Wales.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Wales (Mr. Wyn Roberts): We are deeply concerned about the apparent increase in the misuse of drugs in certain parts of Wales, and that is why we have taken active measures, as part of the Government's campaign to combat the misuse of drugs throughout the United Kingdom. These include steps to ensure that local service providers are doing what is needed to develop coherent patterns of services, the offer of special funds to develop


facilities to combat drug misuse and treat and rehabilitate those who misuse drugs, and the development of health education materials to help parents, professionals and young people.

Mr. Jones: The north Wales health authorities know of 1,000 cases, half of which involve heroin. It is argued that that represents only one tenth of the problem. Is the Minister aware that, of the distraught Clwyd parents I have interviewed, two have told me of the hell of seeing their two sons become heroin addicts? Is there not disquiet in Clwyd health authority, which wants to become a vanguard area, at the lack of additional funds specifically earmarked to cope with drug addition? What is the Department doing to inform the school population in Wales of the terrifying dangers of taking heroin?

Mr. Roberts: The hon. Gentleman is right in saying that there were about 1,000 drug-related offences in 1984, half of which related to heroin. That figure of 1,000 is considerably greater than the total increase between 1971 and 1981. We are fully aware of the misery caused by drug addiction. We are taking steps with regard to health education. There are at least three sources of finance—the psychiatric reserve of the National Health Service, joint finance and the urban programme.

Mr. Raffan: Which district health authorities have applied for special funding? Does my hon. Friend expect to be able to meet those applications in full? Can he assure the House that the money to be made available will be new money? As most of it is to be taken out of the Welsh Office psychiatric reserve, will he assure us that the reserve will be proportionately increased so that other NHS psychiatric developments do not suffer?

Mr. Roberts: We have received bids from South Glamorgan, West Glamorgan, Mid Glamorgan, Gwent and Gwynedd health authorities and we are awaiting a final formal bid from Clwyd district health authority. I remind my hon. Friend that we have increased the money available to the NHS by 12 per cent. We are now examining the bids. We hope to announce our allocations to the various bids in due course.

Mr. Wigley: Is the Minister aware of the anxiety of people in Gwynedd, especially in the port of Holyhead, about this matter? Will he confirm that community physicians who feel strongly on this or any other issue will be free to speak their minds, whatever the policy of the health authority that employs them? Will he also confirm and assure the House that if the British Medical Association makes complaints and approaches to the Department on the right of community physicians not to be gagged, the Minister will investigate those cases?

Mr. Roberts: I am aware of the concern, especially in the Holyhead area. We have received the advice of the advisory committee on the misuse of drugs, which has provided material to assist doctors in treating and rehabilitating drug addicts. Doctors in Wales are in receipt of that advice through the Welsh Office.

Oral Answers to Questions — Secondary Schools (Pupil Costs)

Mr. Knox: asked the Secretary of State for Wales how much was spent per pupil in secondary schools in Wales in the most recent year for which figures are available; and how much this compares with the figure for 1978–79, at constant figures.

The Minister of State, Welsh Office (Mr. John Stradling Thomas): In 1983–84 cost terms, the provisional figure for 1983–84 is £1,006, compared with a figure of £902 for 1978–79.

Mr. Knox: Does my hon. Friend agree that there has been a satisfactory increase in expenditure per pupil in Welsh secondary schools, at constant prices? Has that been reflected in an improvement in standards?

Mr. Stradling Thomas: I agree that the figures reflect the level trend being maintained in expenditure on education. In constant cost terms, local authority revenue spending on education in Wales, excluding school meals and milk, was virtually the same in 1983–84 as in 1976–77, despite the significant decline in pupil numbers. As to the second part of my hon. Friend's question, the Government are concerned to maintain and improve the quality of education to meet the needs of the future.

Mr. Roy Hughes: But what real progress is there if the Government are not taking advantage of the temporary drop in numbers? Currently, text books are at a premium, repairs and maintenance are crying out for attention and extra-curricular activities are being cut. Will the Minister confirm that the overall education budget for local education authorities from 1979–80 to 1983–84 has been cut in real terms by 2 per cent?

Mr. Stradling Thomas: I most certainly do not accept the hon. Gentleman's last point. While resources have held level, the number of pupils has declined markedly—by more than 10 per cent. between 1978 and 1984. That is not consistent with the allegation of heavy cuts.

Oral Answers to Questions — Rate Support Grant

Mr. Wigley: asked the Secretary of State for Wales what representations he has received from local authorities and others in Wales over the past month relating to the rate support grant and capital expenditure guidelines for local authorities in Wales for 1985–86.

Mr. Nicholas Edwards: Three local authorities and one hon. Member have made explicit representations concerning the adequacy of expenditure targets and capital resources since I announced details of the 1985–86 rate support grant settlement on 12 December.

Mr. Wigley: Is the Secretary of State aware that the county of Gwynedd, which has the highest unemployment record of the eight counties in Wales, has suffered a further cut in regional support, as outlined in the Government's recent announcement? Is he further aware that that county, with less finance than is recognised by the Minister's own formula as being needed, cannot undertake not only the luxurious services that have faced the axe in the past but the statutory services that are required by this House?
Will the right hon. Gentleman give an undertaking that any authority unable to meet its statutory requirements because of the settlement can discuss this matter with him?

Mr. Edwards: I do not agree that Gwynedd will have a problem in meeting its statutory responsibilities. As I told the hon. Gentleman during our debate last week, Gwynedd's share of current resources has increased. I note that its capital allocation for 1985–86 is about £11 million — one third higher than the allocation for the present financial year.
Gwynedd's share of the total capital resources allocated to the counties will, as a consequence, be increased. Therefore, both for current and capital expenditure, Gwynedd is doing rather well.

Oral Answers to Questions — Pupil-Teacher Ratios

Sir Anthony Meyer: asked the Secretary of State for Wales what representions he has received regarding pupil to teacher ratios in Welsh schools.

Mr. John Stradling Thomas: The Department has received about 100 letters during the last six months which contain references to the pupil-teacher ratio.

Sir Anthony Meyer: Is my hon. Friend aware that the very satisfactory improvement in the pupil-teacher ratio during the years of Conservative Government none the less conceals disparities such as over-large classes, especially in primary schools? Will he issue guidance to education authorities to seek more flexible arrangements with the teachers' unions to ensure that teachers are available where they are most needed — in the over-sized classes of primary schools?

Mr. Stradling Thomas: The overall teacher-pupil ratio has improved steadily during the past few years and is at its best ever level. However, I take my hon. Friend's point that, although that is a useful yardstick, we should not attach too much importance to it, because it is an average figure. Of course, there will be anomalies and difficulties. Local education authorities have my sympathy, but it is for them to manage their resources as best they can and to get the best provision possible within the resources available.

Mr. Anderson: Two of the Minister's hon. Friends have used the word "satisfactory" when referring to education in Wales. Will he send them a copy of the recent inspector's report and say when and in what form he intends to respond to that report?

Mr. Stradling Thomas: I am aware of that report. It backs the contention of my hon. Friend. Such reports are meant to examine the position carefully. That does not mean that everything is perfect. Satisfactory and perfect are a long way from each other.

Oral Answers to Questions — Enterprise Zones

Mr. Coleman: asked the Secretary of State for Wales how many jobs have been created in each of the enterprise zones, in Wales from their inception to the present date; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. John Stradling Thomas: The latest quarterly progress reports from Swansea city and Delyn borough councils indicate that some 1,430 jobs have been provided in the Swansea enterprise zone since its designation, and some 260 in the Delyn zone. The first monitoring report on the Milford Haven enterprise zone is currently in preparation. Overall, excellent progress has been made.

Mr. Ray Powell: At what cost?

Mr. Coleman: As my hon. Friend says, at what cost are the jobs being provided in the enterprise zones in various parts of Wales? Has the Minister considered the problem of businesses, providing jobs in towns adjacent to enterprise zones because they are collapsing? An

example is a boot and shoe retail outlet in Pontcirdawe. How does what is happening square with the Welsh people's expectations of enterprise zones?

Mr. Stradling Thomas: It is wrong to draw comparisons between regional financial assistance and expenditure on enterprise zones which are experiments in removing burdens and barriers from businesses in addition to the ordinary industrial development activities such as site reclamation and preparation. Much has been done in the Swansea zone.
Regional assistance is available within enterprise zones, but it is not practicable to identify comparable expenditure in the two areas. The hon. Gentleman, as well as my right hon. Friend and I, are proud of the excellent work carried out by the Enterprise Trust in Neath.

Mr. Raffan: Does my hon. Friend agree that the number of new jobs created in the Delyn enterprise zone is particularly remarkable, since until recently only one and a half acres of the 190-acre site have been available for development? Does he also agree that now that the clearance of derelict land and the creation of vital infrastructure is near completion the zone is poised to take off in a significant way?

Mr. Stradling Thomas: I agree. The zone is comparatively new. The initial information augurs well and I trust that Delyn will benefit greatly and flourish.

Mr. Anderson: I believe that the Swansea enterprise zone has, on balance, benefited employment in the lower Swansea valley. May we have an assurance that the figures which the hon. Gentleman has given are in no way padded and that they take into account relocations and jobs which have been destroyed on the periphery of the enterprise zones?

Mr. Stradling Thomas: It is difficult to evaluate the figures. I take on board what the hon. Gentleman says and welcome his positive approach. I have no doubt that there has been a tremendous spin-off from the benefits of the enterprise zone. I am certainly not padding any figures.

Oral Answers to Questions — Social and Economic Features

Mr. Grist: asked the Secretary of State for Wales whether he will list those social and economic features of Wales his Department takes steps to stress to potential overseas investors.

Mr. Nicholas Edwards: Overseas investors choose locations where they think their business will thrive. The perception of Wales as an area of developing technology is, therefore, highly relevant. Wales offers them a skilled and adaptable work force, good industrial relations, good communications, attractive sites and premises, strong industrial back-up, good educational facilities and attractive living conditions. Financial inducements are an important but by no means major element in the complete package on offer.

Mr. Grist: Does my right hon. Friend agree that, while stressing that our fine golfing facilities are a plus with the Japanese, the Cardiff area enjoys all the facilities that he mentioned to a degree unparalleled in the rest of the country?

Mr. Edwards: Cardiff and large parts of industrial Wales are extremely well placed to compete. Indeed, I tell


my Japanese friends that it takes longer to get to their golf courses from the centre of Tokyo than it takes to get from London to the centre of Cardiff.

Mr. Wigley: In view of the importance of communications, to which the Secretary of State referred, what assurances can he give to industrialists and others that the experience on the A55 between Llanfairfechan and Penmaenmawr, which was closed for large parts of last week by a landslide, will not be repeated? Will he assure us that the Welsh Office will investigate the rumours circulating in the area that the landslides were started by drilling initiated by the Welsh Office?

Mr. Speaker: Order. That is somewhat wide of the question.

Mr. Edwards: I agree that communications are extremely important. We cannot give absolute assurances that landslips or nature will not intervene to interrupt transport links temporarily. The hon. Gentleman will know that we are spending enormous sums at present on improving that road.

Mr. Barry Jones: As an economic feature, does the right hon. Gentleman stress skill training? Will he tell us of his efforts to prevent the closure of the Llanelli and west Gwent skillcentres? Is he prepared to accept that if he does not prevent those closures it will be a humiliating defeat for him?

Mr. Edwards: Skill training is of first importance for attracting new industry, and the Government have done more than any previous Government to develop it. The proposals to which the hon. Gentleman referred come from the management of the Manpower Services Commission to the commission, and the commission has not yet taken a final view on them or given that view to Ministers. When that happens, I shall consider what further action is required.

Oral Answers to Questions — Cardiff Airport

Mr. Terlezki: asked the Secretary of State for Wales what representations he has received regarding the future of Cardiff-Wales airport.

Mr. John Stradling Thomas: The Department received representations from the Cardiff-Wales airport joint committee about its proposals to extend the runway. I am sure that my hon. Friend will welcome the Government's favourable response to those proposals.

Mr. Terlezki: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that reply. An increase of 11 per cent. in passengers at Cardiff airport in 1983–84 is welcome. Does he agree that we must do everything that we can to help the airport authority to ensure a greater use of the airport in future, especially during the tourist season?

Mr. Stradling Thomas: I, too, greatly welcome the announcement by my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Transport of a capital expenditure allocation to enable the runway at Cardiff-Wales airport to be extended in 1985–86. That is a clear demonstration of the Government's commitment to the development of the airport, which is a substantial asset to south Wales, and it demonstrates the point of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State that it will be even easier to get to a good game of golf in Wales in the future.

Mr. Roy Hughes: Does the Minister appreciate that the Opposition welcome the increasing success of Cardiff-Wales airport and hope that its most recent application will be considered favourably? How does he reconcile his attitude with the proposal to spend more than £1 billion at Stansted airport? Could not that money be used, not only to develop Cardiff-Wales and other regional airports, but to create general development work and thus employ more people?

Mr. Stradling Thomas: There appears to be a misunderstanding on the hon. Gentleman's part. The money has been allocated. The runway extension should be operational by the summer of 1986. It will allow direct transatlantic flights between Cardiff and the eastern United States and Canada. I am sure that it will boost the number of tourists coming to Wales and make Wales an even more attractive location for inward investment.

Oral Answers to Questions — CHURCH COMMISSIONERS

Curates (Pay)

Mr. Greenway: asked the hon. Member for Wokingham, as representing the Church Commissioners, what are the current pay and emoluments of curates; and what were the comparative figures 10 and 20 years ago, in real terms.

The Second Church Estates Commissioner, Representing Church Commissioners (Sir William van Straubenzee): The current average stipend of an assistant curate is £5,991. In addition, he is provided with a house free of rent, rates, repairs and insurance. I will, with permission, circulate the comparative figures in the Official Report. But they show an improvement in real terms of 35 per cent, over 10 and about 60 per cent, over 20 years.

Mr. Greenway: Will my hon. Friend assure the House that the Church Commissioners will endeavour to pay those scales to all curates? Will he explain why we now have only 10,000 clergy, compared with 100 years ago when we had 20,000 and half the present population? Has productivity been maintained and has quality improved? If so, what on earth did they do 100 years ago?

Sir William van Straubenzee: The short answer is that there is an upper and a lower level on the scale, and a curate is paid within those levels. Regarding the present time, the one factor that is common to both periods is that men undoubtedly do not offer themselves for ordination for financial reasons. I am concerned with the financial matter only, because the commissioners are not responsible, I must make clear, for recruitment.

Mr. Ryman: With respect to the pay of curates, are there not special factors today which would justify an increase? Although there appears to be a calculated conspiracy in the House to prevent a debate on the important matter of the coalmining dispute, does not the dispute impose extra burdens on the clergy, who are doing excellent additional work in parishes in coalmining areas?

Sir William van Straubenzee: While I leave aside immediate matters, I accept that the position of the curates has been such that they have deserved special consideration. I hope that the hon. Gentleman has, therefore, followed that that is precisely what the Church


Commissioners have attempted to do and, indeed, as the figures show, have succeeded in doing during the past 20 years.

Following are the comparative figures:
For 1984–85 the commissioners, as Central Stipends Authority, have recommended a five-year increment scale of £5,600-£6,100. The average stipend in 1984–85 was £5,991. In 1974–75 the equivalent incremental scale extended over eight years from £l,150-£l,510 with an average stipend in November 1974 of £1,424 (equivalent to £4,435 at November 1984 prices). There was no national scale in 1964–65 nor comparable statistics. However, the record indicates that the average stipend of assistant curates was in the region of £600, or £3,800 at November 1984 prices.

Inner-city Sites

Mr. Frank Field: asked the Member for Wokingham, as representing the Church Commissioners, if he will make a statement about the Church Commissioners' policy on the sale of church owned inner-city sites.

Sir William van Straubenzee: The commisioners have primary regard to the interests of their beneficiaries, but also take into account all other relevant factors, including, in appropriate case, the recommendations of the dioceses.

Mr. Field: Given the responsibility of the commissioners to provide salaries and pensions, may I suggest that they publish a discussion paper which sets out the extent to which they are prepared to back voluntary and community groups when they sell valuable inner-city sites?

Sir William van Straubenzee: I am obliged to the hon. Gentleman for reminding the House that, in the great majority of cases, the commissioners devote those proceeds to stipends and pensions, which are extremely important. That fact is not always remembered. My immediate reaction is to say that conditions are so different in a large variety of cases—many of the decisions must be made by the individual diocese—as not to make a paper helpful. However, I shall consider the hon. Gentleman's suggestion.

Mr. Wheeler: Will my hon. Friend bear in mind the fact that, with regard to the disposal of the Holy Trinity church site in my constituency, my constituents welcome the disposal and are especially grateful for the £200,000 which the Church Commissioners intend to make available to local organisations?

Sir William van Straubenzee: I am much obliged to my hon. Friend. There were various points of view in that case, but I hope that the outcome will help the local community that he represents so vigorously.

Oral Answers to Questions — HOUSE OF COMMONS

Staff (Statistics)

Mr. Alfred Morris: asked the hon. Member for Berwick upon Tweed, as representing the House of Commons Commission, how many persons are employed by the Commission in the House; if in this respect any arrangements exist for positive discrimination in favour of the disabled in any of the Departments of the House; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Beith: The total number of persons employed by the House of Commons Commission, including part-time workers, was 913 at 1 January 1985. The Commission's policy on the employment of disabled persons remains as set out in its fourth annual report 1981–82, which made clear its concern to ensure that very opportunity is taken to employ disabled people in the House's service.

Mr. Morris: Will the hon. Gentleman put to the Commission the need for some measure of positive discrimination to increase the number of disabled people employed in the House? Will he suggest a pilot experiment for 12 months among, say, the Hansard clerical staff—the results to be reported to the Commission by the Editor — as a guide to future policy in employing disabled people? Meanwhile, will he say what percentage of employees of the House are disabled?

Mr. Beith: The Commission's policy is already that preference should be given to a registered disabled person where the merits of candidates are otherwise equally balanced. That is drawn to the attention of all recruitment boards. If the right hon. Gentleman is suggesting that we should extend that principle in new ways, he should let me have more details so that the matter can be considered. I welcome the right hon. Gentleman's interest, in view of his experience in such matters. The Commission remains anxious to ensure that the disabled have every opportunity of employment at all levels and in all Departments. At present the proportion of full-time disabled employees is about 1 per cent. but that does not include the disabled people who work in the House for other agencies.

Oral Answers to Questions — THE ARTS

Arts and Libraries

Mr. Meadowcroft: asked the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State answering in respect of the Arts what representations the Minister for the Arts has received on his announcement of the allocation of the arts and libraries expenditure programme for 1985–86.

Mr. Pike: asked the Parliamentary Undersecretary of State answering in respect of the Arts what representations the Minister for the Arts has received about his proposals for funding the arts in 1985–86.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. William Waldegrave): My right hon. and noble Friend the Minister for the Arts has received no formal representations so far on his announcement of the allocation of his programme.

Mr. Meadowcroft: Have the Minister's responsibilities in the Department of the Environment led him to realise the need to expand services, especially library services, at a time of recession and high unemployment to enable those who, alas, have no jobs at present to find other ways of occupying their time which are beneficial to them and in the interests of the community?

Mr. Waldegrave: It is vital to maintain an adequate library service at this time as at all others.

Mr. Pike: rose—

Mr. Faulds: Since the hon. Gentleman is empowered to answer for arts matters in the House, although he is not the Minister, why is he so chary about answering for these


matters when he is asked to do so by the media, in terms of interviews either with the newspapers or with the radio and television companies?

Mr. Waldegrave: I am not sure that that is really a matter best discussed here, but the answer is clear. The House, well understanding the convention that I can say that I will report a specific matter to my right hon. and noble Friend, understands that I am not a Minister for the Arts. I am not sure that I should find that easy to put across in the course of a television interview.

Mr. Speaker: I apologise to the hon. Member for Burnley (Mr. Pike) for not calling him. I was deflected. Mr. Pike.

Mr. Pike: I am grateful, Mr. Speaker. Will the Minister accept that the Government's proposals will cause severe difficulty for the Arts Council to maintain its levels of support in the regions, not only for existing schemes, but for new schemes such as the mechanics centre being proposed in Burnley?

Mr. Walegrave: I know what a determined lobbyist for the mechanics centre the hon. Member for Burnley (Mr. Pike) is, because he has spoken to me about it on several occasions. My right hon. and noble Friend deserves congratulations in respect of the allocations that he has been able to make to the Arts Council. A real terms increase is not to be sniffed at.

Mr. Cormack: In view of the problems and opportunities that will arise as a result of Weston park, Kedleston and Nostell priory, does it remain Government policy to have special reserves available to deal with special needs?

Mr. Waldegrave: As we know from the events surrounding Calke abbey, specific crises have to be dealt with at the time. But I repeat that my right hon. and noble Friend has managed to secure a fairly reasonable overall increase in his programme for next year.

Mr. Jessel: On the provision of funding for the arts via the Arts Council within Greater London, will my hon. Friend confirm that such provision is made in respect of the National theatre, the opera, the ballet and the orchestras? Will he comment on the sudden curtailment of their share of support by the Greater London council, which claims to care about the arts?

Mr. Waldegrave: It is obviously for the Arts Council to make specific allocations to specific companies, though the great companies to which my hon. Friend referred must be at the top of its list.
One is left almost speechless by the irresponsibility of the GLC in threatening a scorched earth policy in the arts to make some point, probably, for all we know, within the Labour party, about the policy towards regional government.

Mr. Buchan: Is it not disgraceful to make that sort of attack on the GLC when the Minister knows that its response is due entirely to Government proposals and cuts?
The hon. Gentleman says that there have been no representations. Does he agree that there has been almost universal condemnation, including from the chairman of the Arts Council, the director of the National theatre and

the director of the National gallery, all of whom have said that they are appalled and that the Government's proposals will gravely jeopardise their institutions?

Mr. Waldegrave: Since the hon. Member for Paisley, South (Mr. Buchan) mentioned Sir Peter Hall, I am willing to stand by his judgment. The weakest of the words that he used about the GLC was "vandalism". The House must recognise that the achievement of my right hon. and noble Friend in obtaining an increase in real terms this year for the Arts Council is a good one.

England Entertains Campaign

Mr. Michael Marshall: asked the Parliamentary Under Secretary of State answering in respect of the Arts what liaison the Office of Arts and Libraries envisages with the English Tourist Board in connection with the England Entertains Campaign in 1985.

Mr. Waldegrave: My right hon. and noble Friend welcomes the campaign and liaises as necessary with the English Tourist Board, and the Arts Council of Great Britain is represented on the England Entertains committee.

Mr. Marshall: Is my hon. Friend aware that the campaign slogan is "See it live in '85"? What do my hon. Friend and his right hon. and noble Friend intend to do about taking up that invitation? Will my hon. Friend also say what his Department intends to do in collaboration with the Department of Trade and Industry to highlight the important role for tourism of British theatre?

Mr. Waldegrave: The first point to make to my hon. Friend, who has considerable expertise in these matters, is to welcome the very dramatic increase in commercial theatre during the last year. Many fewer theatres have gone dark this year than last. This is greatly to be welcomed. It will make a stronger contribution to this programme. My right hon. and noble Friend's Department and other Departments will liaise as necessary with the campaign, which we welcome.

Sir David Price: Does my hon. Friend agree that there is a strong case to be made for the tourist industry making a direct financial contribution to support both the arts and the heritage, as they represent such an important part of the total capital of the tourist industry? To this end, will my hon. Friend begin negotiations with both the Department of Trade and Industry and the Treasury?

Mr. Waldegrave: If my hon. Friend is proposing a new tax of some kind, I hear what he says and I shall report it to my right hon. and noble Friend. We must also remember that it is open to those rich and prosperous companies which make money out of this admirable trade to make direct contributions themselves. I have no doubt that some of them do.

British Library

Mr. Murphy: asked the Parliamentary Under Secretary of State answering in respect of the Arts when the Minister for the Arts expects to announce a decision on the commencement of the building of the next stage of the British Library; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Waldegrave: My right hon. and noble Friend expects to make a decision on the building of the next stage of the British Library by the autumn of this year.

Mr. Murphy: Does my hon. Friend agree that such a major project as this ought to have a full commitment to future funding by Her Majesty's Government?

Mr. Waldegrave: The Government are committed to the first stages of this major development. It will take many years to complete. There will be certain necessary review periods during the course of the project, but by making an initial commitment the Government have shown their attitude to the project as a whole.

Taxation (Works of Art in Lieu)

Mr. Freud: asked the Parliamentary Undersecretary of State answering in respect of the Arts if he will publish a value for money table in respect of works of art accepted by Her Majesty's Government in lieu of tax.

Mr. Waldegrave: No, Sir. Acceptances in lieu depend upon valuations based on market prices and a tax position which is private to the individual concerned. It would not be appropriate to publish details.

Mr. Freud: Does the Minister agree that in his reply on 17 December, in which he said that the criterion was value for money, he was being plainly absurd, in that the only proper criterion should be the importance of a piece of art? Will he bear in mind that with the rising dollar and the falling pound it is becoming ever more difficult to compete with American institutions such as the Getty museum? Will he therefore attempt to get a slightly more realistic total with which to bid for works of art that we wish to retain?

Mr. Waldegrave: The later point about the dollar is extremely important. The hon. Member is quite right. We have to recognise that the monetary value of a work of art

bears some relationship to its importance. That is what was meant by the phrase "value for money". What is saved for the taxpayer obviously depends upon the exact tax position of the individual concerned. That is why I gave the hon. Member my initial answer.

Mr. Robert Sheldon: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that it does little for the reputation of the Treasury in getting value for money if it declines to accept a certain work of art in lieu of taxation and subsequently it is auctioned for very much more money?

Mr. Waldegrave: The other matter which must be taken into account is the shape of what is already in the national collections. For example, in relation to the Duke of Devonshire's old master drawings it was necessary to consider what the British museum owned already. That is a significant factor to take into account.

Mr. Cormack: Does my hon. Friend agree that if the £2 million limit that has been referred to in official pronouncements is adhered to many treasures will go, particularly from the houses that I mentioned earlier—Nostell priory Kedleston and Weston park? Will my hon. Friend reflect on the enormous tourist earning potential of these places and have urgent discussions with our right hon. and noble Friend?

Mr. Waldegrave: I do not think that it is any secret that very difficult decisions must be faced in the time ahead. I am always a little unwilling to defend the retention of works of art on the ground of their tourist attraction, although that is one factor to take into account. I know that my right hon. and noble Friend is well apprised of what my hon. Friend warned me about — the mounting pressure in this sector.

Coal Industry Dispute

Mr. Jeremy Corbyn: I beg to ask leave to move the Adjournment of the House, under Standing Order No. 10, for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter that should have urgent consideration, namely,
the coal industry dispute and the state of power supplies in this country".
I do so for several reasons. First, the miners' dispute has gone on for over 10 months. Secondly, it has produced terrifying costs in human terms. Thirdly, there have been changes in Government policy by stealth—by DHSS payments being withheld, and by the use of a national police force. Fourthly, it has had an effect on public spending.
There are many queries about the real cost in terms of public spending of the miners' dispute. It is estimated to be over £5 billion, both in direct costs and in indirect costs such as loss of tax income and other incomes which the Government could expect if the coal industry were working normally. Furthermore, it is likely that the cost of electricity will rise as a result of this dispute, because the Government are paying a great deal of money to import coal and oil to attempt to break this dispute. There are also. many queries about the safety of nuclear power stations, which have not had normal safety checks throughout the period of this dispute, and about the safety of many other power stations.
The statements made by the president of the National Union of Mineworkers and other people over the weekend warrant an urgent and immediate debate in the House. The House has not debated the dispute since 21 December, when it did so on the initiative of one of my Back-Bench colleagues, who caught your eye, Mr. Speaker, during an

Adjournment debate and was able to raise this matter. Therefore, it is critical that the House debates the cost of the miners' dispute, because if the House is to represent the people, and if hon. Members are elected to come to the House to raise matters of concern to their constituents and the country as a whole, they must have the right to raise them in the House. This is a democratic establishment, and this debate is crucial.
There have been no debates in Government time on the miners' dispute for many months, and we have reached a critical point, when power supplies are under a question mark and the amount of money being spent by the Government is under a great deal of scrutiny. The Government should submit themselves to public scrutiny so that many questions can be raised and, I trust, answered. I hope, Mr. Speaker, that you will agree to this debate taking place, in view of the urgent and critical nature of the mining dispute and the effect that it is having on so many people and communities.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member for Islington, North (Mr. Corbyn) asks leave to move the Adjournment of the House for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter that he thinks should have urgent consideration, namely,
the coal industry dispute and the state of power supplies in this country".
I in no way underestimate the importance of the subject of which the hon. Gentleman has spoken, and I have listened carefully to what he has said. As he knows, my sole concern in considering applications under Standing Order No. 10 is to decide whether the matter should be given priority over the business already set down for this evening or tomorrow. I regret that I cannot find that the matter that he raises meets all the criteria laid down by the Standing Order. Therefore, I cannot submit his application to the House.

Orders of the Day — Hong Kong Bill

Order for Second Reading read.

The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Sir Geoffrey Howe): I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
I have it in command from Her Majesty The Queen to acquaint the House that Her Majesty, having been informed of the purpose of the Hong Kong Bill, has consented to place Her Prerogative and interests, so far as they are affected by the Bill, at the disposal of Parliament for the purposes of the Bill.
The Bill that is before us today is short but of historic importance. The House had a full opportunity to discuss the Sino-British agreement on the future of Hong Kong on 5 December. I was heartened then by the warmth and unanimity of the support with which Members approved the Government's intention to sign it. I am confident that it provides satisfactorily for the continued stability and prosperity of Hong Kong into the 21st century. As the House knows, the agreement was signed by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister and her Chinese counterpart, Premier Zhao Ziyang, in Peking on 19 December.
It was clear from the debate in December that the House saw the agreement as a good one, and one that met the needs of the people of Hong Kong. A number of right hon. and hon. Members raised the concerns expressed in Hong Kong about certain aspects of the agreement. Those concerns have also been fully documented in the report of the Assessment Office.
We have had a full discussion of these matters. For the most part, they do not directly concern the Bill. It is not, therefore, necessary to go over this ground again in today's debate, but I assure the House that the Government have the concerns raised in this House and in Hong Kong firmly in view. We shall continue to bear them in mind in our future discussions with the Chinese, particularly in the Joint Liaison Group.
A number of hon. Members suggested during the debate that the Government should make an annual report on Hong Kong to the House and that there should be a debate on it. I entirely accept that the House will wish to be informed about developments in Hong Kong fully and speedily when they occur. I assure hon. Members that the Government will take care to report to the House whenever there is anything significant to report. There is certainly no reluctance on our part in that respect, but I frankly doubt the value of institutionalising an annual report and debate. My fear is that that could well have the unintended effect that important developments were not properly debated as and when they occurred. This is not what any hon. Member wants.

Mr. Russell Johnston: Does that mean that the right hon. and learned Gentleman does not want an debate annually and wishes the matter to be left to the discretion of the Government?

Sir Geoffrey Howe: I am saying that the Government are well aware of the need to keep the House informed of changes and developments in Hong Kong and do not wish

to avoid debates on those matters as and when appropriate. However, if we provide expressly for an annual report and annual debate, that will tend to act as a concentrator and a means of diminishing the prospect of a sensible report and debate when that is important. I am wary of the institutionalisation of anything of that sort. Such reports tend to be a repetition of previous reports in form, for example. Although designed with the best intentions, they often have the opposite effect of that intended.

Mr. Denis Healey: I am somewhat perplexed by what the Foreign Secretary has just said. We have annual reports on the Army, the Navy and the Air Force, which are debated in the House and which produce useful debates. Those debates do not prevent the House from raising any matter concerning the Army, the Navy or the Air Force in between times if that seems appropriate. Regular reports are made to the House by the European Community on various matters, which again does not prevent us from debating other matters when that seems appropriate. The right hon. and learned Gentleman has given an opaque reason for opposing a recommendation which has been supported widely in the House and in another place.

Sir Geoffrey Howe: That may be the right hon. Gentleman's opinion, and there is room for differences of judgment. The right hon. Gentleman's judgment is not mine. My instinctive reaction to the annualisation of reports is to regard that practice as often diminishing the importance and value of the reports. However, the matter can be considered hereafter, and I have no doubt that it will be considered on many occasions. We shall report to the House on these matters, as we recognise the need for the House to have opportunities to debate them. However, despite the overwhelming quality of the right hon. Gentleman's rhetoric, and the breadth of support for the proposition in earlier debates, I am not persuaded that it would be right to institutionalise an annual report in the way that is proposed.
Since the debate in which those matters were raised, my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister and I have visited Peking for the signature of the agreement and we were able to raise with Chinese leaders a number of the questions that were touched on in that debate. The House will not expect me to go into details of our discussions, but Chinese leaders at the highest level gave us solemn assurances of China's commitment to full implementation of the agreement and of their intention to consult Hong Kong opinion on the drafting of the basic law on a wide basis.
Following that signature, we and the Chinese Government both have to satisfy our respective constituional requirements in order to ratify the agreement. The main purpose of the Bill before us today is to enable Her Majesty's Government to ratify the agreement.
The Bill itself provides for the termination of British sovereignty and jurisdiction over Hong Kong as from 1 July 1997. I shall briefly describe its main features. The central provision of the Bill is clause 1. It provides for the termination of British sovereignty over ceded parts of Hong Kong and the termination of British jurisdiction over the whole territory with effect from 1 July 1997. That clause will enter into force on the exchange of instruments of ratification. The clause will enable the Government to meet their obligation under paragraph two of the joint


declaration, in which the Government of the United Kingdom declare that they will restore Hong Kong to the People's Republic of China with effect from 1 July 1997.
In recent years it has become the invariable practise when the United Kingdom divests itself of sovereignty over territory to do so upon the authority of an Act of Parliament. The situation of Hong Kong is of course sui generis. In this case we are entering into an agreement with another power to terminate sovereignty as from a certain specified date. Nevertheless, the need for parliamentary authority for the termination of sovereignty remains the same: it is essential that this authority should exist before the Government ratify the agreement and thus create an international obligation.
The schedule to the Bill deals with three aspects related to the agreement and the termination of sovereignty. They are, first, the changes in British nationality laws necessary as a consequence of the agreement and the associated exchange of memoranda with the Chinese Government; secondly, amendments to British laws in preparation for or consequent upon the termination of United Kingdom sovereignty and jurisdiction; and, finally, the provision of diplomatiic privileges and immunities to the five Chinese members of the Joint Liaison Group.
I deal now with nationality, and in this context I shall mention the reasoned amendment tabled by the right hon. Member for South Down (Mr. Powell), and my hon. Friend the Member for Orpington (Mr. Stanbrook) and I made it plain in the House on 5 December that the legislation that we proposed to introduce would provide powers to make the amendments to nationality legislation that are necessary as a result of the agreement and the United Kingdom memorandum.
Those provisions are contained in paragraph 2 of the schedule, which enables a subsequent Order or Orders in Council to be made to ensure that British dependent territories citizenship cannot be ratained or acquired on or after 1 July 1997 by virtue of a connection with Hong Kong and to create a new form of British nationality that may be acquired by persons who are BDTCs by virtue of such a connection with Hong Kong.
Following consultations with the Hong Kong Executive Council, it is intended that the title of the new form of nationality should be "British National (Overseas)". It has not been easy to devise a title which meets all the necessary requirements. On the one hand, it needs to make clear that we are dealing with a form of British nationality. Nothing less than that would be acceptable in Hong Kong. On the other hand, it is essential that the title we choose can continue to be used after 1997. For this to be possible, the title must clearly carry no implication of a continuing constitutional relationship between Britain and Hong Kong after 1997.
I believe that the title we have chosen meets those needs. It has necessarily been the subject of careful consultations with the Executive Council. The completion of these consultations has enabled me to announce the title to the House today. There should now be adequate time to explain the choice of the new title—

Sir Paul Bryan: Will my right hon. and learned Friend repeat the title once again?

Sir Geoffrey Howe: Certainly. It is "British National (Overseas)". The fact that my hon. Friend has intervened

to ask for that repetition underlines the point that I was making, that there needs to be adequate time to explain the choice of the new title to the people of Hong Kong.

Mr. Johnston: I am grateful to the right hon. and learned Gentleman for giving way to me once more. He said that the title had been agreed after consultation with the Executive Council. Having talked to some of the members of the council, I understand that that title was about the seventh on the list of possible titles. I am not sure that it is true that the absence of any reference to Hong Kong in the title is acceptable.

Sir Geoffrey Howe: The hon. Gentleman is right to say that the suggestion that the title should include a reference to Hong Kong is one of the factors that has been canvassed, for understandable reasons, but, for the reason that I have given, in our judgment, which was acceptable to the Executive Council after discussions, it would not be acceptable for the title to carry the implication of a continuing constitutional relationship between this country and Hong Kong. I readily accept that it has not been a matter of swift and easy deliberation to come to a conclusion about that, but that was one of the factors that we had in mind.

Mr. Christopher Murphy: Will my right hon. and learned Friend clarify, under paragraph 2(1)(b) of the schedule, the use of the word "may", because I understand that there is considerable concern in Hong Kong over the use of the "may" rather than "shall". My right hon. and learned Friend has just said what the new form of citizenship will be called. Can he tell us something about the citizenship and the documentation that will result from such a title?

Sir Geoffrey Howe: I hesitate to answer any point, unprompted. about the precise drafting of a subparagraph of a paragraph of a schedule. I shall decline my hon. Friend's invitation, but will note his point and see that an explanation is advanced in due course.

Mr. Peter Bruinvels: rose—

Sir Geoffrey Howe: I hope that my hon. Friend has a less subtle point to raise.

Mr. Bruinvels: I am certain not certain that my point is that subtle. My right hon. and learned Friend has just mentioned the constitutional purpose of the title of British National (Overseas). I am particularly interested to know—I am sure that the House is, too—what rights such people in Hong Kong will have after 1997. Will they be able to come to this country to settle permanently?

Sir Geoffrey Howe: We have now reached that point in interventions when I may conclude, at least for a time, that the intervention is likely to be dealt with in the rest of my speech. I shall therefore proceed to the next section to meet my hon. Friend's point.
If an amendment to the title introduced — I can understand why it might be argued that it is desirable—there should be an opportunity to do that, after the further explanation that I described, in another place. I said on 5 December that the schedule included a specific provision that the orders may include any measures that are necessary—this is a separate point—to ensure that no British national or any child born after 1 July 1997 to a British national is made stateless as a result of the arrangements.

Mr. J. Enoch Powell: Did the right hon. and learned Gentleman say that if an amendment was desired to be debated that could happen in another place? Is he implying that there would be no opportunity for that during the Committee stage of the Bill?

Sir Geoffrey Howe: Clearly, there would be an opportunity in Committee in this House, as in the other place, for that point to be debated. However, I was saying that, in my judgment, if the title is to be further explained and appreciated in Hong Kong before it is incorporated in the Bill—if it is incorporated—it might be more suitable for more time to elapse, which is why I identified the other place. I am sure that nothing that I can say will have the effect of inhibiting the right hon. Member for South Down (Mr. Powell) from debating the matter in the House. I have indicated, however, the likely response.
It is the Government's intention that all the necessary amendments to nationality legislation should, if possible, be made by one Order in Council, although the Bill would allow for adjustment or addition by further Orders in Council, if that became necessary. I should emphasise that these powers to alter the nationality laws by way of Order in Council could be used only in connection with the purpose which I have described. They would not permit alterations to be made for any other purpose or in respect of any other group of people not connected with Hong Kong. We intend to make the order at an early date and, at the latest, within a year of the passage of the Bill. The Bill provides that such orders will be subject to the affirmative resolution procedure. I emphasise that Members of both Houses would have a full opportunity to consider and debate the proposals in this Order in Council.
I do not agree —I anticipate the point likely to be made by the Opposition—with the right hon. Member for South Down that this procedure would provide inadequate opportunity for consideration of the measures proposed. It was precisely because we knew that the House would want to give detailed consideration to the orders that we proposed to make them subject to the affirmative procedure. Obviously, the Government will take careful account of the points which enjoy widespread support among hon. Members, and which may arise during today's debate.

Mr. Healey: I apologise for interrupting the right hon. and learned Gentleman again, but this point may prove to be the nub of any disagreement on the major procedure that the Government recommend. Having laid an order for discussion in both Houses, will it be possible for the Government to take account of strong objections to some element in the order and, without seeking affirmation by both Houses, to revise the order and bring it back for later voting? We are concerned most about the fact that it would be possible, under the procedure envisaged by the Government, to put forward an order to which there turned out to be strong and valid objections in Hong Kong, this House and another place, and yet the Government would not be free, even if they wished, to vary the terms of the order before a vote was taken.

Sir Geoffrey Howe: I understand the point that prompted the right hon. Gentleman to intervene. He will appreciate that it is not customary for an order that is being debated under the affirmative procedure to be subject to amendment. Indeed, that cannot be done in the debate taking place at that time. The design of a procedure that

would meet the right hon. Gentleman's point takes one into relatively unknown territory. I should need to discuss that point further before giving a firm answer. I am anxious for hon. Members to take the opportunity afforded by today's debate and the debate in Committee in both Houses to register the points about which they are concerned.

Mrs. Elaine Kellett-Bowman: My right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food met that point by bringing forward a drat order to deal with the agricultural provisions and at a later date brought forward a substantive order so that hon. Members could go into the order in detail. Voting took place later on the substantive order.

Sir Geoffrey Howe: I do not have in mind every aspect of the activities of my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Lancaster (Mrs. Kellett-Bowman) for drawing my attention to that example. If pressed, I could think of other examples. At the moment, there is no undertaking in that respect.

Mr. John Morris: Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman give way?

Sir Geoffrey Howe: I hope that the right hon. and learned Gentleman will allow me to get on with my speech.

Mr. Morris: Does the right hon. and learned Gentleman agree that there would be no need to consider or design a new procedure if the Government said that they would introduce their draft order on a tentative basis and did not seek to roll measures through the House, regardless of opinion? The Government should make sure that there is ample opportunity for views from Hong Kong to be expressed. The Government would suffer no loss of face, if strong representations were made to the House, by withdrawing the measures temporarily and reconsidering the matter during debate.

Sir Geoffrey Howe: The right hon. and learned Member makes the point with his customary eloquence. I shall not now give any undertaking on the matter, but I hear what is being said about it.
Perhaps I may be allowed to proceed with the substance of my speech, leaving some questions to be answered by my hon. Friend at the end of the debate, rather than try to answer them now.
The Bill does not in itself include the full and final provisions on this subject and I can give some reasons why that is so. The agreement set a time limit for ratification, which must take place before 30 June this year. By that time the Bill must have passed through both Houses and received the Royal Assent. That is why the Bill was introduced so soon after the signature of the agreement.
Although the United Kingdom memorandum lays clown the main lines of what is necessary, there is still —as our discussion so far has demonstrated—detailed work to be done in framing legislation to give effect to it. Those are matters that require careful thought and consultation, not least in Hong Kong. There must be adequate time for that consultation to take place.
This is a subject in which there is, understandably, interest in Hong Kong. It is most important that the legislation is acceptable there. Work on this is in hand. and discussions are taking place with the Executive Council in


Hong Kong. However, it would not necessarily be wise, and in fact it is not necessary, to attempt to carry through detailed provisions in the time scale which the date of ratification imposes on legislation. Even so, the measures concerned arise directly out of the agreement and the memorandum. It is, therefore, appropriate that all such matters should be dealt with in the Bill.
I can give some examples — no doubt other hon. Members will give others—of the details that are likely to be included in the order. It will, of course, make provision for the removal of Hong Kong from the list of dependent territories in schedule 6 to the British Nationality Act 1981 with effect from 1 July 1997, and for the acquisition of the new form of nationality. For technical reasons it is not possible to rely on the words
by virtue of a connection with Hong Kong".
The order will therefore detail who is eligible to acquire the new form of nationality.
It is the Government's intention that the new form of British nationality should carry broadly the same benefits as British dependent territories citizenship, except that it will not be transmissible by descent. Holders of the new status will be able to use British passports. They will be eligible for British consular protection in third countries. They will have a right to registration as British citizens on the same terms as BDTCs. In short, the order will in effect redefine the scope of the British Nationality Act 1981 to cover the new status where appropriate.
In addition, the order will also set out the circumstances in which persons who might become stateless as a result of these provisions, and the children born after 1 July 1997 to holders of the new status, if they would otherwise be stateless, may acquire a form of British nationality, which will be British overseas citizenship.
Even though the proposals cannot yet be final, we thought it right that the Bill should contain a clear indication of the Government's intentions with regard to nationality and set out a framework for the subsequent subordinate legislation that will be necessary. Parliament quite rightly expects to have the opportunity of considering what the general nature of such legislation would be. Moreover, to adopt any other course would perpetuate uncertainty in Hong Kong—

Mr. Andrew Faulds: Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman give way?

Sir Geoffrey Howe: I shall give way in a minute. It could also lead to doubts about the Government's willingness to implement the provisions of the United Kingdom memorandum. I am sure hon. Members would agree that that would be most unsatisfactory.

Mr. Faulds: Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman confirm that the assurances that he has just given would cover non-Chinese Hong Kongers who live abroad—in south-east Asia somewhere—who would be in a ghastly limbo of lostness if they were not covered by what I understand are the assurances that he has just given?

Sir Geoffrey Howe: The hon. Gentleman must forgive me if I do not respond instantly, as almost every word in his sentence might have some special meaning which must be considered. I shall see that his question is considered. If possible, my hon. Friend the Minister will deal with it in his winding-up speech.

Mr. Peter Bruinvels: I understand the circumstances with regard to stateless people — they show a caring Government — but I am still worried about whether British Nationals (Overseas) are to have priority over any other people from abroad if they want to settle in the United Kingdom permanently.

Sir Geoffrey Howe: No. There is no intention to effect or imply any such change. We intend to give substantially the same rights and limitations as are attached to British dependent territory citizens under existing law, with the principal change of withdrawing the right of transmissibility for one generation. There is no change along the lines that my hon. Friend suggests.
For the reasons that I have outlined, I invite the House to reject the reasoned amendment in the names of the right hon. Member for South Down and my hon. Friend the Member for Orpington.
Paragraph 3 of the schedule gives the necessary powers to make changes in British law in consequence of or in connection with the ending of sovereignty. It enables Orders in Council to be made to repeal or amend United Kingdom legislation in so far as it is part of the law of Hong Kong, to enable the legislature of Hong Kong to repeal or amend United Kingdom legislation in so far as it is part of the law of Hong Kong and to legislate with extra-territorial effect, and to repeal or amend British legislation which relates to Hong Kong. These are normal provisions when this country ceases to have sovereignty over a territory. They are written into independence Acts, and, although this Bill is of course different from an independence Bill, a similar provision is necessary in the case of Hong Kong. It would be inappropriate to continue after 1997 to have references in the laws implying the continuation of a constitutional relationship with this country.
Paragraph 3 will also allow Hong Kong, in the years up to 1997, to adopt local laws to replace those United Kingdom enactments which currently form part of the law of Hong Kong in, for example, on civil aviation and shipping. It is primarily in those areas that legislation will be necessary with extraterritorial effect, for instance in connection with air piracy and regulations for shipping. This is a very important provision, since it is clearly essential that by 1997 Hong Kong's law can be self-contained, as that law will form the general corpus of law of the special administrative region under the agreement.
Finally, paragraph 4 of the schedule accords diplomatic privileges and immunities to the five Chinese members of the Joint Liaison Group who will attend those meetings of the group which take place in London. We need to do this to fulfil our obligation under annex II to the joint declaration, which provides for the creation of a Joint Liaison Group of five British and five Chinese members to meet in London, Peking and Hong Kong. The annex provides that members of the Joint Liaison Group will enjoy diplomatic privileges and immunities as appropriate when the group meets in the three locations. Existing legislation would not cover this rather unusual category of representative, and it is therefore necessary to legislate specifically. Hong Kong will need to legislate separately to provide privileges and immunities in Hong Kong for the Chinese members of the group until 1997. Appropriate measures will have to be taken for the British members of


the group thereafter. It will be for the Chinese to provide similar privileges and immunities to the British members when the group meets in Peking.
Before concluding, I should like to say something about the future. The signature of the agreement and, I hope, the passage of the Bill, leading to ratification of the agreement, represent the beginning of a process, not the end. There is much to be done between now and 1997. It will require the closest co-operation between ourselves and the Chinese Government. It will also require the closest consultation throughout with the people of Hong Kong.
The process of consultation, which has worked so well throughout the negotiation of the agreement, will be further assisted by the progressive strengthening of representative government in Hong Kong over the next 10 years. As the House knows, the first elections to the Legislative Council will take place in September this year, and there will be a further public review of the electoral process and constitutional structure in two years' time.
The most immediate task will be the establishment of the Joint Liaison Group, provided for in the agreement. We are now actively working on this. The Governor of Hong Kong is in London this week, and my discussions with him will include this important subject. Thereafter, we shall also need to discuss practicalities further with the Chinese Government. I shall inform the House in due course of progress on this issue.
We have negotiated a satisfactory agreement for the future of Hong Kong. We have had ample demonstration that it is acceptable to this House and to the people who live there. We now need to move rapidly to ratify and implement the agreement so that the renewed confidence that has been established in the territory with the publication of the agreement and its signature can be secured and strengthened.
As I have explained to the House, paragraph 8 of the joint declaration provides that instruments of ratification shall be exchanged before 30 June 1985. It is very much in the interests of the United Kingdom and of Hong Kong that we should make as rapid progress as possible with this Bill to enable us to meet that date.
The Bill is short and straightforward. I strongly commend it to the House.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I should announce that I have not selected the amendment in the name of the right hon. Member for South Down (Mr. Powell).

Mr. Denis Healey: First, I thank the Foreign Secretary for lifting the veil on some of the matters which were left obscure in the Bill, but I regret that he did not lift the veil on rather more.
This is the last chance that the House will have to discuss the general framework of the agreement and to question the Government on some of the issues on which they were either unable or unwilling to give their views before Christmas. The Bill gives us no opportunity to discuss those issues in Committee, although it establishes a procedure for deciding other vital issues, especially nationality, on which I shall have some questions to put soon.
I should like first to raise some issues that arise with new urgency after the Prime Minister's most recent visit

to Peking and Hong Kong, just before Christmas. The House has become so accustomed to U-turns and somersaults from the Prime Minister recently that it is easy to believe that she was infected by Mao Tse Tung's doctrine of permanent revolution. Indeed, she might well go down in history as the incredible revolving Maggie. There is stark contrast between her first and second visits to the far east, which were just over two years apart. The first was a disaster from every conceivable point of view. The right hon. Lady offended the Chinese Government so deeply that the possibility of any agreement over Hong Kong seemed capable of disappearing. Just the other day, the Daily Telegraph quoted Mr. Deng Xiaoping, the main Chinese leader, as muttering to an aide:
I can't talk to that woman, she is utterly unreasonable.
The Prime Minister has at least one great achievement to her credit — she elicited a similar response from Senator Reagan on her visit to Washington before Christmas. He said:
She talked and she talked—and in the end I gave up interrupting.
That is the Maggie we all know and love, especially Conservative Members on the Front Bench.
The real damage on the Prime Minister's first visit was done by her subsequent press conference in Hong Kong. Mr. David Bonavia, the staid but much respected correspondent of The Times in the far east, said:
Mrs. Thatcher left the next day, somewhat like one of those typhoons which run in from the Western Pacific, leaving a trail of destruction behind them. Seldom in British Colonial history was so much damage done to the interests of so many people in such a short space of time by a single person.
The Hong Kong stock exchange collapsed and did not recover to the level at which it stood before the right hon. Lady's visit until just two weeks ago. That recovery was due to the fact that the Foreign Office has shown so much patience and skill in undoing the damage done at that time. I must say, from the Opposition Front Bench, what nobility I perceive in the patient merit of those public servants. We — and none more than the Foreign Secretary and her whom he serves—owe a great deal to all of them.
The arrangement reached general agreement both in the British Parliament and in Hong Kong as the best that could be achieved in the circumstances, and far better than anyone believed possible in the immediate aftermath of the typhoon. It is sometimes sad to reflect how much of the time of the Foreign Office during the past six years has been spent in clearing messes made by the Prime Minister. Its diplomatic triumphs, from Rhodesia to Hong Kong, have not so much increased Britain's influence in the world—that, like sterling, has never stood so low—as effected the smoothest possible disengagement from the past responsibilities of the empire. There are still some quite important tasks awaiting the Foreign Office, not least in the Falklands, where experience with Hong Kong could prove of vital importance and set interesting precedents.
The skill of our diplomatists, combined with the underlying good will of the Beijing Government. has transformed the atmosphere and offered the people of Hong Kong a far more promising future than most people expected when this act of the drama opened in the summer of 1982. But, once again, some clouds over that achievement have been cast by the Prime Minister. Just before Christmas she paid a second visit to Beijing and Hong Kong, when it was a different story. The right hon. Lady was the toast of Peking. We were told by the Daily


Telegraph that she told the Chinese leaders that she fully understood China's unique concept of maintaining the territory as a capitalist enclave in a Marxist state. I wonder whether China still wishes to be regarded as a Marxist state, especially in the light of some recent articles in the Peking press about Marxism and its relevance to the modern world.
When the right hon. Lady flew to Hong Kong, it was a different story. She was as arrogantly insensitive to the views of the Hong Kong people in her second press conference there as she had been to the views of the People's Republic of China during her first visit there. In fact, she outdid even the right hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Mr. Heath) in the chilly disdain she showed for the 5·5 million people who live in that territory. Perhaps, again, Peking has done something in bringing the Prime Minister and the right hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup— who in many ways she so closely resembles—together on at least one subject in current British political concerns.
When the right hon. Lady was asked during her last press conference in Peking whether it was unreasonable for the people of Hong Kong to want actual representation on the committee drafting the basic law for Hong Kong—which will embody the agreement that she had made with the Peking Government, and which means that Hong Kong becomes a special administrative region —according to the Far Eastern Economic Review, she snapped:
That is not the point. The basic law is the law of China. You would expect China to draw up the basic law…Some in Hong Kong found such insensitivity to their feelings frustrating, but they have long realised that if they want to extract further concessions from the Chinese leadership about their future, they have to rely on themselves and not Britin.
I shall refer later to some of the problems that that issue raises.
The second extraordinary event during the press conference in Hong Kong was not referred to or clarified by the Foreign Secretary this afternoon. According to the Far Eastern Economic Review, the right hon. Lady
caused consternation among Government officials when she said that Sir Edward Youde, the Governor of Hong Kong, would be member of the Sino-British Joint Liaison Group.
The officials know, as the House knows, that for the first three years of its existence the Joint Liaison Group is to meet alternatively in Hong Kong, Peking and London before it sets up its principal office in Hong Kong in July 1988. With such a schedule, it is unlikely that the Governor would be a member of the group because that would mean his spending two thirds of his time outside Hong Kong.
The question posed by the Far Eastern Economic Review —and I repeat it to the Foreign Secretary —is whether the Prime Minister had a temporary loss of memory during the press conference or deliberately ignored the advice of the Foreign Office. I hope that the Minister will be prepared to answer that question when he replies to the debate.

Mr. Robert Adley: The right hon. Gentleman has probably done a service to the House by reminding us of the difficulties of coping with the machine-gun fire of questions during press conferences in Hong Kong. That being so, was not the Foreign Secretary wise not to try today to answer highly detailed points that

might be more suitable for the Committee stage as such answers could easily be misunderstood and cause a great deal more harm than good if they were to be so misinterpreted?

Mr. Healey: I understand the hon. Gentleman's lack of confidence in the Prime Minister's ability to handle the press, and I fully share his view. The fact is that the right hon. Lady chose to address the press conference. The Foreign Secretary has held press conferences in Hong Kong during which no such unfortunate lapses occurred. The questions that I am asking the Minister to answer cannot be raised in Committee, because that will be tightly confined to the matters in the schedule. I am raising questions of wider importance, and they can be raised only on Second Reading. None of them will be unfamiliar to the Foreign Office, the Foreign Secretary or the Minister. If they have answers to the questions, there is not the slightest reason why they should not give them to us this afternoon.
I hope that the hon. Gentleman will agree that the question whether Sir Edward Youde is to be a member of the Joint Liaison Group is relevant and that there is not the slightest reason why it should not be answered by the Foreign Secretary today. Indeed, the right hon. and learned Gentleman was unwise not to answer it, in view of the consternation aroused in Hong Kong by the Prime Minister's press conference.
I hate to twist the bayonet in the wound, but I come now to the Joint Liaison Group. The Far Eastern Economic Review states:
To complicate matters, Thatcher"—
I apologise for not giving the right hon. Lady her full title, but I am quoting—
told reporters in Peking that the joint liaison group would be consulted on the pace of political reforms. There is concern in some quarters that this may mean interference by China.
I hope that the Minister will tell us precisely what is implied by that. I well understand that it will be the responsibility of the Joint Liaison Group to ensure that developments between now and 1997 do not disturb the arrangements laid down in the agreement that will be confirmed in the Bill. The Joint Liaison Group's role in overseeing the movement towards democracy or more representative government in Hong Kong is of deep concern to this House, the other place and the people of Hong Kong. We deserve some explanation about what the Prime Minister meant by that remark.
The most damaging comment on the Prime Minister's visit was the following:
The prime minister's offhand dismissal of the issue of Britain's moral responsibility — one which Thatcher herself stressed repeatedly when she was in Hong Kong in 1982—flew in the face of generally acknowledged concern".
That compels me to make a comment on the implications of this rather unhappy story of prime ministerial intervention in the affairs of the territory. I hope that the Foreign Secretary will assure us that in future he will not allow the Prime Minister to go on barging about like Rhoda the rhino with her usual arrogant incompetence in issues which clearly she does not understand. I am sure that if the right hon. and learned Gentleman seeks such an undertaking, he will receive a lot of support in the Cabinet, not least from his successor as Chancellor of the Exchequer after the hair-raising irresponsibility of No. 10 on the exchange rate just over a week ago.
I have often expressed my qualified admiration for the Prime Minister. She has some qualities which are unique


in her Government. There is no member of her Cabinet with whom I would rather go tiger shooting, but I should absolutely insist that, before we set out together, she was taught the difference between a tiger and an elephant—particularly the elephant that I was riding. In future, when the Foreign Secretary takes the Prime Minister abroad with him, he would be wise to take similar precautions, or he could find, as he did during his last visit, that the patient work of months — indeed, years — is undone by a careless remark by the Prime Minister.
The problem is that the Prime Minister still insists on indulging favourite aspects of her personality on issues that she does not understand and too often seems to see her responsibilities for the government of this country as a monstrous ego trip.
I want to put some specific questions to the Foreign Secretary which arise out of the various outbursts by the Prime Minister during her world tour. I pressed the right hon. and learned Gentleman in December for an annual report on developments in Hong Kong which the House would be able to debate if it wished. We do not want an automatic annual debate on Hong Kong. I was not particularly encouraged by what the right hon. and learned Gentleman said this afternoon, nor was I convinced that he was totally persuaded by his own argument. His argument was that if we had an annual report on a question, it could never be discussed at another time. That argument is not worthy of consideration. The House will be able to insist on debates on Hong Kong whenever it wishes, but it is important that they are well-informed debates.
In the difficult and critical period before 1997, when sovereignty is finally transferred, it would be useful to have an annual report to Parliament. The Foreign Secretary admitted that that view is held strongly by members of all parties in another place and here. I hope that he will reflect on what he said this afternoon and come to a different conclusion later.

Sir Geoffrey Howe: I was persuaded by my own argument, and it was that that led me to make my offer to the House. My anxiety is practical. I do not wish to diminish or discourage discussions on Hong Kong. Perhaps my experience is unique, but one can become depressed by the wearisome familiarity of the structure of annual reports. They can fall into an annual rhythm, even when the scene is changing as rapidly as it is in Hong Kong. I am anxious not to condemn the reality of the subject to being encapsulated in a wearisome annual framework.

Mr. Healey: I, too, am an ex-Chancellor, but I never found the annual public expenditure reviews and Budgets to be as boring as the right hon. and learned Gentleman clearly found them at the time. Perhaps that was because of the content of the documents, not because they were annual. I hope that the right hon. and learned Gentleman will reconsider, particularly in the light of the many cases that contradict his conclusion.

Mr. Johnston: I am puzzled as to what the right hon. Gentleman thinks. He said categorically that he was not very keen on annual reports, but he also said that he was.

Mr. Healey: We often have the same uncertainty about the Foreign Secretary. He is drawing down the curtain on an episode in history which began with the opium wars.

There could have been no better Foreign Secretary to perform that function than the right hon. and learned Gentleman.

Sir Geoffrey Howe: The question was not about me.

Mr. Healey: Yes, it was.

Mr. Johnston: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Healey: If I misunderstood, I shall give way.

Mr. Johnston: I simply wanted to know whether the right hon. Gentleman was in favour of annual reports.

Mr. Healey: Which right hon. Gentleman?

Mr. Johnston: The right hon. Member for Leeds, East (Mr. Healey).

Mr. Healey: It is such an unfamiliar experience for me to be accused of such ambiguity that I misunderstood. Of course I am in favour of annual reports, but I believe that the House should have the right not to debate them if it does not want to do so in a particular year. That is normal. Many annual reports from the European Commission, the United Nations, the World Bank and the International monetary fund are not debated each year. I see that the hon. Member for Inverness, Nairn and Lochaber (Mr. Johnston) is now convinced, if I understand correctly that the majestic inclination of his chin signals areement rather than fatigue.
Perhaps I may continue, after being so courteously interrupted, on a question about the basic law. That issue is solely for Beijing. As I said in December, if the people of Hong Kong wish to influence it, they must approach the authorities in Peking.
One of the Peking-sponsored monthlies in Hong Kong, called Wide Angle, suggested that ultimately a drafting committee of 40 or 50 would be established, of whom at least 10 would come from Hong Kong. I was surprised that the Prime Minister rejected the idea of Hong Kong participating in any way in the drafting of the basic law since that article appeared before the Prime Minister's visit to Peking.
This is a matter for Peking, but have the Government any information about how the authorities in Peking propose to consult the 5½ million people who will 'become citizens in 1997? It would be helpful if that were known as soon as possible.
We all agreed that the Joint Liaison Group was vital to ensure orderly progress, and the initial fears about it in Hong Kong have long since disappeared. I hope that the Minister will answer the specific question that I asked about the group's role in determining the pace of political change in Hong Kong—the Prime Minister referred to that in her press conference — and tell us who will represent the British Administration in Hong Kong on it. Will Sir Edward Youde be a member, as the Prime Minister asserted in Hong Kong? Will there be scope at any stage or in any area of its work—for example, in working groups—for representatives of the people of Hong Kong to be members? We asked those questions last time, and we are still waiting for answers.
Can the Foreign Secretary or the Minister tell us what steps the Government are taking to ensure that the rest of the world allows Hong Kong to continue its membership of international organisations, such as GATT and the multi-fibre arrangement, when Hong Kong leaves British


sovereignty and becomes a special administrative region of the People's Republic of China? I understand that Peking agrees with Whitehall that Hong Kong should remain a member of those organisations, but we have yet to hear whether the other members of those organisations take the same view. We deserve to know what soundings the Government have taken and what assurances, if any, they have so far received. The Bill does nothing to enlighten us about those issues and, as drafted, does not allow us to raise them again in Committee. For that reason, I took this opportunity to raise them on Second Reading.
The Bill establishes a procedure to deal with problems of nationality, and I am glad to say that the Foreign Secretary gave us further information about that today. These matters are of direct human and personal concern to 3 million people in Hong Kong. Above all, there is the proposed conversion of BDTC status into a new form of British nationality. We support that objective as strongly as we reject the view of the right hon. Member for South Down (Mr. Powell) that no such provision should be made. In seeking to have the Bill rejected on the ground of the procedure involved, the right hon. Gentleman is being less than candid about his real objectives, although I appreciate that this may be his only opportunity to raise the matter.

Mr. Ivor Stanbrook: Apart from the merits of the Bill, does the right hon. Gentleman agree that it is undesirable to alter an Act of Parliament by an Order in Council made under a different Act of Parliament? That is the point of the amendment. It prevents the House from amending the alteration to the original Act of Parliament.

Mr. Healey: That is precisely the point with which I am about to deal, and which I raised with the Foreign Secretary in an intervention during his speech.
Can the Government tell us whether there is any other case of a new category of citizenship being established for members of a colonial territory through an Order in Council? I know that it has happened in the case of one or two associated states, but I do not think that it has ever happened in the case of a colonial territory. In principle, it is undesirable that it should be done in this case. However, I understand why the Government chose this route. If the House is to accept the decision, certain important conditions must be met.
I greatly welcome the fact that the title given to the new form of citizenship will be British National (Overseas). I know that the people of Hong Kong will be glad that the "British" occurs first. This was a matter of interest when BDTC status was discussed in the British Nationality Act 1981. In the end the Government had to change their view. I am glad that the Government have accepted the change, because the word "British" at the beginning of the title will increase the influence of the new status on the readiness of other Governments to accept it.
It could take years to register up to 3 million people for this new form of citizenship. Their existing status must be confirmed, and formalities will have to be gone through. What is still puzzling is that presumably the registration of people with the new status will begin well before the transfer of sovereignty in 1997. Will individuals who register early for the new status keep their existing status until the transfer of sovereignty? Do I understand that that will not be affected by their decision to opt early for the

new sovereignty? That is a question of great concern to the people of Hong Kong, and it is one to which the Government should not have the slightest difficulty in replying clearly today.
My next question relates to the point raised by the hon. Member for Orpington (Mr. Stanbrook). Many Opposition and Conservative Members are worried that, by adopting the affirmative procedure of Order in Council, it will be impossible for the Government to take note of widespread and legitimate objections in Hong Kong and in the House to elements in the new status such as were successfully taken note of when we discussed the British Nationality Act 1981 and when an important change affecting British dependent territory citizens was agreed.
Can the Foreign Secretary guarantee to leave enough time between the publication of an Order in Council and debate in Parliament to allow views to be formed on the Order in Council in Hong Kong and for them to be made known to hon. Members? The discussion would be a farce unless the House and the other place were able to take into account the considered views of the people of Hong Kong. If there is strong opposition to elements in the Order in Council expressed in the debate, will the Government make provision to take the Order in Council away without a vote, revise it and bring it back? In other words, will the Government be prepared either to publish an Order in Council initially as a draft order, as the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food already does in many cases, or at least to treat it as a draft order and be prepared to withdraw it and resubmit it if there proved to be overwhelming opposition to elements in it expressed in the House or the other place, or both? Unless the Government give these assurances tonight, I suspect that the proceedings next Monday will be more difficult and prolonged than most hon. Members would wish them to be. Similar considerations apply to any Order in Council which is made to avoid statelessness for any current residents in Hong Kong.
I hope that the Minister can give satisfactory assurances on those points and on my earlier questions. Otherwise consideration by the House of the Bill, and certainly of any future Orders in Council, will be a great deal more difficult than is necessary.

Sir Peter Blaker: The House will have been amused by the long ramble taken by the right hon. Member for Leeds, East (Mr. Healey) through the gossip columns — on my reckoning, it lasted for 27 minutes — and it was grateful that, at the end of his speech, he turned his attention to the Bill.
The question whether sovereignty over Hong Kong should be transferred to China in 1997 has already been decided by the House, and almost no one in the House believes that it took the wrong decision. Opinion is almost unanimous that the agreement made with the Government of China is an excellent one that will enable the people of Hong Kong to preserve their traditional way of life. Indeed, it is a remarkable agreement, embodying as it does no fewer than 16 specific freedoms that go to make up the way of life of the people of Hong Kong.
It is becoming clear that one anxiety of the people of Hong Kong—about the durability of the agreement—has less basis than it seemed to have at one time. It is clear that the agreement is likely to last. It will last for reasons of


self-interest on the part of China: the economic self-interest; and a self-interest in the sense that it will set an example which will be relevant to the possible unification of the mainland of China and Taiwan.
Nevertheless, it was obvious from the Prime Minister's press conference in Hong Kong last month that some people still oppose the agreement. There were references in the questions asked of the Prime Minister to handing Hong Kong to a Communist dictatorship. Such questions displayed a basic misunderstanding of Deng Xiaoping's concept of, "one country, two systems." When people ask, "Can the Chinese in Peking keep their hands off religion in Hong Kong after 1997," or "Can they keep their hands off the education system," or "Will they allow private property to flourish in Hong Kong," they fail to understand what the concept of "one country, two systems" involves. It will require a self-denying ordinance on the part of the Chinese Government. China is as well aware as anyone that Hong Kong is the goose that lays golden eggs, now for its own people and also for China, but in the future increasingly for the benefit of China. The arrangement of "one country, two systems" contains an automatic goose-preserving mechanism. If the Chinese begin to meddle in the internal affairs of Hong Kong, contrary to what they have declared in the agreement, confidence in Hong Kong will disappear, the goose will grow thin and pine, and the eggs will no longer appear.
A good example of the common interest that China and Hong Kong have in the prosperity of Hong Kong occurred recently. This morning I was fortunate to talk to Sir S. Y. Chung, the senior unofficial member of UMELCO, who has come to Britain directly from Peking to be present for the debate. We are grateful to him and to other members of UMELCO for being kind enough to brief some of us during the past few days. He was in Peking to attend the signing of the agreement for the Daya bay nuclear power station. That is an enormously important project worth $4 billion.
At the signing ceremony, the Prime Minister of China made four points about the project. First, it is the largest joint venture into which China has entered since the open-door policy was adopted. Secondly, the project is bigger than all the other joint venture projects that have been signed by China during that period put together. Thirdly, it will be a catalyst that will help forward similar joint ventures. Fourthly, because most of it is financed by a loan, and that loan will be repayable from the proceeds of sales of electricity to Hong Kong, China has a built-in interest in ensuring that Hong Kong remains prosperous. Only if Hong Kong remains prosperous will China be able to service the loan. That is an interesting example—examples are happening almost every day—of the way in which the common interests of Hong Kong and China will be built up.
Recently a two-week seminar in Hong Kong was attended by representatives of the 14 cities that are now special economic zones along the coast of China. Those representatives came to Hong Kong to learn how to operate a free enterprise system, to arrange instruction in technology and to consider the possibilities of raising money. It is interesting that they came to Hong Kong, not to Shanghai or other ports on the Chinese coast, to look for those advantages. I believe that they will continue to look to Hong Kong for them.
It is worth asking ourselves whether it is right to legislate so soon after the signing of the agreement. I

believe that it is the right course, because it helps to preserve certainty about the future. Therefore, helps to sustain prosperity, because certainty is necessary if prosperity is to continue.
The economic successes of Hong Kong are remarkable. The agreement initialled in the autumn and signed in December has already had a beneficial effect on the economy. Land prices have recovered from the severe drop that they suffered some time ago. Hong Kong's exports have increased by 25 per cent. over the same period last year. Investment is coming in from the United States, and inquiries about investment are coming in from Japan.
Paragraph 2 of the schedule will be the most-discussed matter during today's debate. I am glad that the Foreign Secretary announced today the nomenclature of the new form of citizenship which will replace that of British dependent territory citizen for Hong Kong people. What time scale does he envisage for the passage of the relevant Order in Council? It has been represented to members of the Hong Kong parliamentary group that it should be passed within a year, for much the same reason as I mentioned when I congratulated the Government on introducing the legislation rapidly.
With regard to the amendment of the right hon. Member for South Down (Mr. Powell), I remember that many years ago when I was studying law lawyers used to enjoy arguing whether it was proper jurisprudentially to enable an Act of Parliament to be amended by Order in Council. But they never came to a clear conclusion. and I am not sure whether, if they set about the subject now, lawyers would come to a conclusion. However, we should bear in mind the fact that the Government have only a narrow scope when tabling the order.
My right hon. and learned Friend the Foreign Secretary has already committed himself fairly clearly to what he means by
a new form of nationality,
which is referred to in paragraph 2(1)(b) of the schedule. There is not much scope for the introduction of an order in due course which will be ultra vires, it seems to me. If the Government introduced an order which went too wide, which I take to be one of the concerns of the right hon. Member for South Down, would not the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments draw that to the attention of the House, and would not the House therefore have an opportunity to consider whether the order went too wide?
If I have correctly understood the anxieties of the right hon. Member for South Down—

Mr. J. Enoch Powell: indicated dissent.

Sir P. Blaker: —they should be modified by the fact that the order has to be within the terms of the Bill, and they are seen to be pretty narrow when one considers paragraph 2 of the schedule. We also have the knowledge that the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments will examine the order when it is laid. I do not believe that the Government have a blank cheque. To put it at its mildest, it is a cheque of the kind which bears at the top, "Not above £30."
My right hon. and learned Friend the Foreign Secretary discussed whether there might be an amendment to the Bill incorporating the new name of the citizenship to be granted to the BDTC. It will be rather difficult to do that in the Bill. As I understand it, the intention of the usual channels is that the House should consider the remaining


stages of the Bill in a week's time, and I am not sure that that allows enough time to ascertain the opinion of the people of Hong Kong on the proposed name. That leaves the possibility that another place might consider an amendment. My right hon. and learned Friend referred to the possibility of the Government putting forward such an amendment in another place. But I am not sure that I would be entirely happy to leave that debate to another place and not debate it first in this House. I am inclined to say that in my view that idea is not really a starter.
Then we had a discussion about whether there would be a draft Order in Council. The Bill already provides that the order will be laid in draft, so I do not think that hon. Members are really talking about the laying of a draft Order in Council, which was the language used by the right hon. Member for Leeds, East. We shall have a draft Order in Council, anyway. The real point is the one raised by the right hon. and learned Member for Aberavon (Mr. Morris). Will the Government introduce an order in tentative form without the intention of having a vote on that occasion but in order to ascertain the view of the House? If we had a vote, it is likely that the Whips would be on, and it would be difficult to ascertain the view of the House. Therefore, I am attracted by the idea of the right hon. and learned Member for Aberavon.
I was grateful when my right hon. and learned Friend the Foreign Secretary outlined some of the relevant factors which would have to be covered by Orders in Council introduced under paragraph 3 of the schedule. The list on page 8 of the White Paper containing the agreement is a long one. We might need Orders in Council on many of the subjects there set out, including such matters as copyright, land, shipping, adherence to the GATT and the IMF, pensions of civil servants, and so on. These orders would be laid under the negative resolution procedure. I hope that the Government will be responsive if it is the wish of the House to have debates on that category of orders as well. It is important that they should take great care to see that these matters, which will come up over the next few years, are adequately discussed if that is the wish of the House. It may be necessary from time to time to have more than one and a half hours for a debate on an order. In the case of the order on the nationality question, for example, it is inconceivable that the House would be happy with a debate lasting only one and a half hours. It might be necessary to have a full day's debate.
I support the Bill. There are many tasks before China, the United Kingdom and Hong Kong over the coming years until 1997. There is the elaboration of the basic law. There is the progress towards democracy in Hong Kong. There is adherence to the international organisations. There is the work of the Joint Liaison Group. There are many other tasks. I am optimistic that these tasks will be discharged successfully and in a way which reinforces the relations between China and the United Kingdom and between both of them and the people of Hong Kong. All three of these parties are pragmatic people. I believe that they are all determined to make the agreement work. What is more, it is in the interests of all three parties that the agreement should work.

Mr. John Morris: In the last few days I have had the pleasure of meeting a number of people in

Hong Kong, especially experienced and eminent lawyers, and I am grateful to the Foreign Office and to the Hong Kong Government for making the arrangements. I was concerned to establish as far as I could — I readily concede that I could do it only on a very limited basis —any views that were held on the legal implications arising in the post-agreement period.
Other than two short visits to Hong Kong in the past, I confess that my knowledge of the sitution was limited. As a former defence Minister under my right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, East (Mr. Healey), I had then and subsequently familiarised myself with and visited our defence establishments there, so I was not entirely innocent.
The first matter that was drawn to my attention was a concern about the basic law. It was conceded on all sides that this was a matter for the Chinese Government. It was felt that the British Government had no role in this. I was not aware of any expectations that they might have.
Nevertheless, on a matter so vitally important for the people of Hong Kong, how are their views to be made known to China? There was a wish that China should establish a proper forum so that the views of the people of Hong Kong might be received. There was also the view that nothing should be seen to be done which might poach into our responsibility over the next 12 years. Whatever fears there might be in that respect, in my view the paramountcy of the need for a proper and adequate means of ensuring that the views of the people of Hong Kong are better known outweigh some people's perception of danger.
Other than the welcome continued impetus towards democracy, about which I detected a degree of ambivalence—certainly as regards the development of collective, let alone party, views — what other machinery might be set up? I was glad to hear the affirmation today by the Foreign Secretary that the Chinese would consult in Hong Kong on a widespread basis. However, at present we are not clear how that is to be done to ensure that the views of the people of Hong Kong are fed in in the proper way before the basic law is formalised.
Another matter that causes concern is the timing of the introduction of the basic law. The legal traditions of a non-capitalist state are different from the traditions of a capitalist state or of a state with a mixed economy. To this must be added the complications of a system of law that is based upon precedent and the common law, upon which is grafted a number of statutes. The system in China is totally different from that in Hong Kong. However, a basic law has to be evolved which caters for the development and continuance of the existing laws in Hong Kong, although they will have to be changed to meet circumstances as they develop.
I was asked how the concept of judicial review would operate after 1997, in particular regarding clashes between legislation within Hong Kong and the basic law. To resolve these differences, so far as they can be resolved, will take time. However, the view expressed to me time after time was that it should not take too long. The great value of the agreement has been the diminution of uncertainty. That has been reflected in a number of ways. Reference has been made, for example, to property values and the stock exchange index. Whatever the indicators, there has been a return of confidence to Hong Kong.


Therefore, agreement on the basic law by China well before the end of this decade will give added impetus to the continued diminution of uncertainty.
Circumstances will change and develop between now and 1997. However, I suspect that the drafters of the legislation are sufficiently wise to recognise the need for flexibility in order to meet conditions between now and 1997 and to form the foundation for the period thereafter. Within these constraints, I believe that the sooner China determines its basic law the better it will be for Hong Kong.

Mr. Ivan Lawrence: Before the right hon. and learned Gentleman moves on from the very important point that he has made, will he be a little less timid and consider the possibility of advocating, as there is in America, a supreme court to rule upon any conflicts that might exist between local law and basic law and thereby resolve any differences that might arise? Unless there is machinery of that kind, surely all that the right hon. and learned Gentleman is saying is very vague and unconstructive. Surely it is bounden upon us to try to make a more constructive suggestion.

Mr. Morris: My appearance of timidity is essentially because there is ambiguity on this point. It is a grey area. I am sure that the hon. and learned Member for Burton (Mr. Lawrence) will have read the terms of the agreement. He will have learnt that appeal to the Judical Committee of the Privy Council will no longer continue. He will also have read that there is a proposal to set up within Hong Kong a supreme court which will deal, as a final court of appeal, with matters arising within Hong Kong and that the suggestion has been made that judges from outside Hong Kong should sit on such a court.
However, to turn to the point which the hon. and learned Member for Burton has made—that it is a grey area and what is to happen in future—machinery is envisaged for appeals within Hong Kong, but, as I understand it, and I should be glad if I could be corrected—I see that the hon. and learned Gentleman is nodding agreement with me—there is a grey area relating to what happens if there is any clash between the law of Hong Kong and the basic law. The basic law is paramount.
Let me take a perhaps ridiculous example, and I do so only by way of example. The agreement envisages freedom for religion. What will be the position if, because of a brainstorm, whoever is legislating in Hong Kong decides to diminish that freedom, which I hope will be enshrined in the basic law? I envisage that that would be a matter requiring some kind of machinery similar to the judicial review which we have in this country. I am glad that the hon. and learned Member for Burton has given me the opportunity to elaborate at perhaps greater length than I intended upon this matter. I hope that when the Minister winds up the debate he will give an assurance about adjudication and future possible clashes at that level—the point upon which the hon. and learned Gentleman has put his finger.
The other matter that is causing concern is the status of the new passport. I welcome the observations of the Foreign Secretary. As I understood it, he said that within a year the matter of laying an Order in Council would be determined. However, the problem is: when will it become operational? My right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, East made this very point. Until 1997 there will be

an Order in Council setting up the status of the new passport. When will people expect to have these passports, or is it envisaged that people will continue to hold their present passports for the best part of the next decade? The way in which a passport is treated by the receiving country is very important. That is the consumers' test of any passport and of any status that it seeks to cater for. Therefore, well before 1997 this problem ought to be clarified.
It will be the Government's responsibility to ensure that receiving states are made abundantly aware of the status and value of the passport so that for a number of years people can use the new passports, if they so wish, to ensure that they are properly tested by the receiving countries. When one is dealing with millions of passports, in order to avoid a hiatus it may be necessary to have a period of dual validity for both existing and new documents.
When I met distinguished members of the councils, together with the hon. Member for Welwyn Hatfield (Mr. Murphy), it was not clear whether all the stages of the Bill would be taken tonight. I said that I doubted very much whether all stages would be taken tonight. I was relieved, upon my return, to find that this would not happen. However, as the right hon. Member for Blackpool, South (Sir P. Blaker) said, it is a very short time indeed between Second Reading and the Committee stage next week for the views of the people of Hong Kong to be made known.
I hope that the managers of the business of the House will reconsider the matter so as to ensure that there is a longer time between the two stages. Although Hong Kong is only a matter of many hours flying time away, lime is needed for people to form their views. The earliest opportunity that they had to see a photostat or telex copy of the Bill was just before last weekend. They are very anxious indeed to have time in which to make representations. People cannot come from Hong Kong at five minutes notice.
I trust that if representations come within the next few days the Government will be able to respond to them before Third Reading. I should be far happier if we did not rush this legislation, and did not put all our eggs into one basket and relied on matters to be further considered in the other place. This morning I had representations from the Indian community, and I am sure that other hon. Members received some as well. Representations are bound to come, and they must be given proper consideration, so that people's anxieties can be allayed.
There is a similar problem with statutory instruments. We have quite rightly been told that nationality provisions need an affirmative resolution of each House. That means a debate and, if necessary, a vote. I agree with the right hon. Member for Blackpool, South that one and a half hours may be completely inadequate to deal with all the representations. The anxiety that has been expressed about the speed of the Bill will be expressed about the publishing of statutory instruments in good time so that, before the matter is debated in the House, there is adequate time for the people of Hong Kong to make their views known.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, East spoke of draft regulations. I suggest that draft orders should have a green edge, in the same way as we have Green Papers, and should be on a tentative basis. There should be no loss of face by the Government if, when they have published and we have debated the draft instruments, so much anxiety is expressed in the House that the only proper course is to withdraw them at the end of the debate. I have


been here for more than a few years and have had some experience of what the Whips get up to. I fear that we shall be driven through the Lobbies far too quickly, without adequate time for the Government to reflect on the representations that are made.
I hope that we shall have an assurance from the Minister that, such is the importance of these draft instruments, and particularly as we are in partially uncharted seas, we should not make mistakes. We should be given every chance to ensure that people are not only heard but have a response from the Government on the feelings expressed in our debates. As draft orders need a negative resolution, the House will have to be on constant watch. It will be up to us to ensure that, when there is disquiet, prayers are tabled and we have the opportunity to discuss these matters and, if necessary, to reject them by a vote.
Having said that, I wish the Bill a fair wind. The Joint Liaison Group has an important role to play in the future of Hong Kong, even though the Prime Minister did not understand its role. My right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, East referred to the Prime Minister's statement about the Governor. She said that she would be astonished if the Governor was not part of the Joint Liaison Group. Rightly or wrongly, the Prime Minister is always confident. This is a danger, as she knows very little about these matters.
The House has a continuing responsibility until 1997, both legally and morally. During that period there should be regular debates on Hong Kong and its policies and problems to show the people there that we care. I was disappointed with the argument put by the Foreign Secretary. I know the difficulty of discussing annual reports that are long out of date. He has told the House that when there is anything worth reporting it will be reported to the House. It is important that this is done, not by a statement at 3.30 pm, but through a debate, with adequate time provided by the Government, so that these matters are debated and ventilated in the House. We need better assurances from the Government tonight.
Hong Kong is a thriving part of the expanding and virile south-east Asia and western Pacific. America and Japan have not been worried about sovereignty. They have taken a greater share of the trade, development and expansion of Hong Kong. I hope that we recognise this and play our part as a trader and developer in ensuring that Hong Kong has an even greater role in raising the standard of life of ordinary people in the part of Asia well beyond its borders. The important issue is the standard of life for the people in Hong Kong and beyond, not an argument about sovereignty, which has bedevilled us for such a long time, but which has caused no anxiety to America or Japan. They have been able to snatch a growing proportion of trade in Hong Kong, a proportion even greater than ours.

Sir Paul Bryan: It is no more than three parliamentary weeks since we discussed the subject matter of the Bill—the agreement on which it is founded—both in this House and the other place. It was debated well and fully. Taken together, those debates were the best debates that we have had on Hong Kong for many years. Over the past 10 years or so hon. Members' interest in Hong Kong has increased greatly. It has grown with the importance of Hong Kong in the world. Now we have a well-informed

parliament, ready to keep its eyes on the progress in Hong Kong. We are determined to do that in the years up to 1997.
We have hon. Members who have made it their business to learn about Hong Kong; the debate in the other place showed how much people such as Lord MacLehose with his deep knowledge of the territory, Lord Home, a past Foreign Secretary, Lord Lindsay of Birker who lived in China for many years and has so much experience, and Lord Rhodes, who has taken such an interest in both Hong Kong and China, know about the area. Parliament today has a wealth of experience and knowledge on this subject, hence the quality of our debates.
The verdict of those debates was an acceptance of the agreement, an acknowledgement of the fact that it was acceptable to Hong Kong, coupled with a deep appreciation of the skill of the negotiators who achieved that agreement. Since that debate, confidence in Hong Kong, which took a turn for the better on 26 September when the agreement was signed, has continued to rise. The UMELCO speaking notes that most of us have received say:
Since the signing of the Joint Declaration, confidence in Hong Kong has considerably recovered".
It goes on to refer to the rising stock exhange, the firm dollar, and so on.
David Bonavia has already been quoted in the House. He has said:
The New Year marks Hong Kong's entry into politically uncharted waters, but its economy shows every sign of making a fast recovery from the uncertainty of the recent past.
The Hong Kong Bank, in its January report, states:
Hong Kong was entering 1985 with a renewed sense of confidence and optimism following the signing of a treaty with China on the territory's future after 1997.
So the progress continues. The efficacy of the Bill depends on China honouring the draft agreement, a factor which has naturally featured already in the debate. In this connection a passage from the debate in another place deserves our consideration. I quote from the speech of Lord MacLehose of Beoch. He said:
For a Communist Government to commit itself to maintaining this capitalist enclave may seem to some so bizarre as to be incredible, but the fact is—and I do not know how much this is generally realised — this concept is entirely consistent with Chinese policy towards Hong Kong, at least over the past 20 years.
Lord MacLehose went on to say that the characteristics of Hong Kong, as described in the joint agreement, have been permitted to exist over all these years irrespective of the regime in Peking. He continued:
In my years as governor I found the Chinese People's Government and its officials in Hong Kong both friendly and supportive; so there is nothing inconsistent, far less suspicious, in the Chinese Government having now volunteered that Hong Kong should continue under their flag more or less as it is since it has been their policy to accept it for so long under ours."— [Official Report, House of Lords, 10 December 1984; Vol. 458, c. 39.]

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harold Walker): Order. Is the hon. Gentleman quoting a Minister or a Member of another place?

Sir Paul Bryan: A Member of another place.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: It is in order in the current Session to quote a Minister in another place, but not a Member.

Sir Paul Bryan: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I shall not do so again.
So the changes that we are anticipating are not so sudden or out of character as some suppose. The co-partnership in industry between the two countries, about which we talk a great deal, has existed for a long time. No one has ever quite known the scale of it because it has not been over-advertised, especially when the political climate in Peking has been uncertain. There is evidence of increasing interdependence between China and Hong Kong. The meteoric growth of trade between the two countries shows how that is happening. Trade has increased fivefold in five years. In 1984, entrepot trade increased by 130 per cent. That is an illustration of what has happened with the opening of the door from China to Hong Kong.
In the course of 1984 China overtook West Germany and the United States to become Hong Kong's second and most important export market. That might be thought to be not unnatural for neighbouring countries, but in 1978, before the "four modernisations" were announced, China ranked only 37th in Hong Kong's markets. There has been an enormous increase in the connection between the two countries and Hong Kong's role as an entrepot has been transformed. Re-exports to and from China have more than doubled every year since 1978, and it was thought that they would amount to HKS25 billion in 1984.
An article on Hong Kong appeared in the Financial Times on 3 January. It read:
Hong Kong will remain the main doorway to the only remaining huge undeveloped market in the world … People here have a shared language and culture, and they have commercial links throughout the mainland that it would take a Western businessman years to develop.
In addition, the container port is the third most active in the world and is about to become the second most active. As we heard from my right hon. Friend the Member for Blackpool, South (Sir P. Blaker), China goes to Hong Kong for its technology. The signing of the agreement on the Daya bay nuclear plant has been the most significant development for many years. When this Bill is debated in another place I hope that Lord Kadoorie, the Chairman of China Light and Power, a main partner in the project, will be there to tell us all about it.
I stress the growing interdependence between the two countries because it shows that the economic scene is changing so quickly that it is impossible to visualise Hong Kong in 1997. It is certain that Hong Kong will be a very different place when we hand over our sovereignty. We in the United Kingdom will find it hard to keep up with developments.
There are signs also that political changes may come faster than we anticipated. It was apparent during the debates in December that most of us agreed with the Green Paper produced by the Hong Kong Government on electoral reform and the subsequent plan. I understand that an unexpectedly large number of candidates are likely to come forward for district board elections, which will be taking place shortly. There is a great variety of candidates. The somewhat lukewarm interest that we assumed would be taken in the voting procedure may prove wrong, and we may have to move faster than we expected.
I was extremely glad to read in the newspapers two or three days ago that the successor to Sir Philip Hadden Lave as Chief Secretary is to be David Aikers-Jones. I am sure that those who know David Aikers-Jones will agree with me that he is an admirable choice. He has served the Hong Kong Government in the New Territories for the past 20

years and he has great knowledge of China, the Chinese language and Hong Kong. There will be general delight that he has moved into such an important pos: at such a critical time in the history of the territory.
Over the past year UMELCO has supplied us with three papers prior to our three debates. The changing nature and content of the papers tell the story. The first paper, which was published in May, consisted of a long list of matters of concern to those in Hong Kong, and genuine matters of concern they were. It consisted also of a long list of assurances and undertakings that they needed in the agreement. I and many other hon. Members wrongly thought that UMELCO was asking for too much I doubted whether the Chinese Government would go that far. In the event, I was wrong. and the agreement obtained was much more favourable and much more detailed than I had ever expected.
The second UMELCO paper was published on 29 November 1984. It reflected the success as set out in the agreement. It was a reasoned paper accepting the agreement and giving the reasons for doing so The four critical areas on which assurances had been sought had met with satisfactory assurances.
We have now been supplied with the third speaking note. It is a much shorter document than the papers which preceded it. That is because so much of what had been asked for had been granted. However, that does not mean that we are left with no worries. Most of the worries that can be dealt with by the Bill relate to nationality. The paper concentrates on the status of the new passport, nomenclature, statelessness and so on. That does not mean that they are the only remaining worries, but they are important worries with which the House must deal in the next few weeks and months. I very much hope that the Government have listened to those who have asked for sympathetic consideration of those nationality worries. For example, are we giving enough time? Would it be a good idea to put off the Report stage and Third Reading for a while so that we can hear more views from Hong Kong, as has been suggested?
But whatever happens we must remember a point that has already been made several times, and that is that during the next few years the people of Hong Kong will be watching Britain to see whether our commitment to that territory continues undiminished until 1997. Today they will be looking to see how we deal with their worries about nationality. That is the first test of commitment that we must pass. I hope that the Government will do all they can to pass that test.

Mr. J. Enoch Powell: It would be wrong if the Bill were to receive a Second Reading without there being placed on record a remonstrance against what is proposed in the matter of nationality, and against the manner in which what is proposed is to be executed.
I shall deal first with the manner in which the proposal is to be carried out. I admit that when I read the White Paper that was debated a few weeks ago and saw the reference to an intended alteration of our nationality law, it did not occur to me that it would not be carried out by legislation. I am afraid I had forgotten that the Foreign Secretary is the same person as the right hon. and learned Gentleman who once devised a way whereby, through a Bill of only five clauses, the House could divest itself of all the rights that it had laboriously acquired and defended


for seven centuries. That was a much greater feat than he will achieve by relegating to an Order in Council the important alteration in our nationality law foreshadowed in the appendix to the agreement with China on Hong Kong.
It would not be true to say that there is an obligation on the Government to proceed by way of an Order in Council because an agreement is being implemented. Of course I accept that where legislation implements an international agreement into which the Government have entered it is possible to argue that the scope for the House — except by withdrawing confidence from the Government — to amend its terms must necessarily be limited or non-existent. In this instance that is not the case. The proposals on British nationality form no part of the agreement that is to be ratified. They will simply be part of one of two memoranda that will be exchanged. The agreement has left Parliament free to consider and, if necessary, to amend— if it so wishes, to reject—the alterations to citizenship alluded to in the memorandum.
My researches so far lead me to agree with the right hon. Member for Leeds, East (Mr. Healey) who said that he did not remember any case in which a new form of British nationality, a new category of British national, had been created by Order in Council, and not by legislation.
Of course, it is possible and acceptable to alter by Order in Council the contents of a schedule to a British Nationality Act so as to accord with a change in the status of a territory to which that Order in Council refers. That, too, is not what is happening in this case. Indeed, even when alterations were made to the first schedule to the British Nationality Act 1948 the Government were always punctilious to make it, and to meet its consequences, through primary legislation.
I should therefore like to put on record that the House is essentially being denied its right to proceed by Act of Parliament in creating a new category of British citizenship, and I am afraid that what seems to be a germinating agreement between the two Front Benches on an alternative is not satisfactory. The right hon. Member for Leeds, East says that if we could have a draft—presumably he means what we, under direct rule in Northern Ireland, would call "proposals for a draft"—published in advance, we could hold a debate on it, and then an Order in Council could be passed unamended. We cannot allow that to stand. We cannot allow it to be said that it is the equivalent of legislation if a Government lay a draft of an order and allow that draft to be debated before the order is brought before the House. The essence of our legislative procedure, which we have elaborated over many centuries, is that it enables us to concentrate successively on each different point that arises. Several different points relating to legislation have already been raised in the debate which it would be quite impossible, in any such procedure as appears to be gaining favour, to violate so that they could be debated separately and the Government forced to consider each on its merits. I wish to place on record that we should protest against being deprived of our right to have the law of British nationality altered only by Act of Parliament duly passed through all stages in both Houses.
I turn to the content of the proposals. We are going to create what the Bill calls
a new form of British nationality.

Those who hold it are to be called British Nationals (Overseas). I do not think that I was mistaken—yet I had difficulty in crediting my ears—when I heard the Foreign Secretary say that that description "carries no implication of a continuing constitutional relationship". It is absolute nonsense to say that. Why, the very word "nationality", let alone "British", carries constitutional implications. In proclaiming that we are doing something that has no constitutional implications — in promising that we will create a "form of British nationality that has virtually no content"—we are using a definition that is calculated—I was going to say, to be ambiguous, but I shall go further — to deceive, that will deceive and perhaps is intended to deceive.
As we learn in the White Paper, the document that those accredited with this status are to be given is to be called a "British passport". Most people think that they know what is meant by that. Back in the 1960s most people thought that they knew. People generally—particularly those not learned in our law of nationality — would hardly credit that the "form of British nationality" that is to be created will not also convey the essential and central right of nationality, that this holder of a "British passport" can enter at will the country whose name, in the adjectival form "British" it carries.
The whole meaning and implication of a "form of British nationality" conferring the right to hold a "British passport" and conferring upon the holder the description of a "British national", is that the recipients will be British nationals in the natural acceptance of that term. Nothing said in debates in the House and no reference to other parts of our nationality will disabuse the public or the world of those notions.

Sir John Page: I am listening to the right hon. Gentleman with the greatest care, but I wonder whether the word -British" has, over so many years—he has more experience of this than anybody else—retained the connotation of the British empire and Commonwealth of about 3,000 million people in 1945?

Mr. Powell: I can readily resolve the hon. Gentleman's difficulty. In 1981 we passed new nationality legislation which declared "British citizenship" and defined "British citizens" as the people who belonged specifically, and virtually exclusively, to this United Kingdom. So those who look to the word "British" will be all the more misled when they realise that we have called ourselves "British citizens" and thus—though I take no objection to it—arrogated to the United Kingdom the adjectival description of "British". I am much obliged to the hon. Gentleman for his intervention, since it enabled me to strengthen and reinforce the point that I was making.
All those who have taken part in these debates—naturally I am in agreement with them—hope for the best. We hope not only that we shall get to 1997 with this agreement intact but that the agreement will remain intact in the decades after 1997. But nobody in this House ought to be so rash as to act or legislate upon the assumption that that will be so. It is not difficult to imagine circumstances that could arise—political changes that could take place—in China, which would create an overpowering desire on the part of those holding this new status and these documents to secure admission to the United Kingdom — a country in which, despite all that is often said against it, there is a widespread desire to obtain admission


and residence. That is not intended, we are told; yet in much of the discussion that has gone on in the run-up to this legislation expressions have been used which strongly indicated that that might be envisaged. I remember the article in The Times on 27 September 1984 which said that we should give
as broad definition as possible to those BDT passport holders eligible to settle in Britain under the discretionary terms of the 1981 Nationality Act.
That is a misunderstanding of the British Nationality Act, but certainly it is a misunderstanding not confined to the leader writer of The Times, even though the Secretary of State specifically repudiated it in his speech.
If those circumstances arise, we shall be put in the dock. We shall be told, "You chose—not as a result of an agreement with the Government of China, you chose of your own free will, on your own initiative—to create a new form of what you, not we, call 'British nationality'. So these are 'British nationals'. You chose to give them what you, not we, described officially as a 'British passport'. How then can you refuse admission to your country, the country of 'British citizens', to these people who claim a right to enter, implicit" — so it will be argued, as it has been argued in past years in other contexts —"in the very documents which you have given them."
I have no wish to see any of those who will lose their British nationality, exiguous though it is under the 1981 Act, as a result of the transfer of sovereignty made stateless. I would support any legislation designed to have that effect. I have no wish to see them in a position in which they are worse off than the citizens of any other country on the face of the earth in having no form of identification as they seek, as many of them will, to travel. What I protest against is that we should place them and ourselves in a false position which will enure, if events should be less happy than we expect, to our discredit and to their disappointment in years to come.

Mr. Ian Wrigglesworth: What does the right hon. Gentleman propose should be the status of citizens of Hong Kong?

Mr. Powell: After 1997 we shall be in no position to confer upon the citizens of Hong Kong any status arising out of our national authority, out of our sovereignty, or to confer any nationality upon them through anything that this House can do. Yet I would not exclude our dealing with the problem when it is defined as potential individual statelessness—I would not reject consideration of that; statelessness would be a minority phenomenon—nor our securing international agreement to some kind of document which would give facilities to those persons on travelling. The hon. Gentleman is reinforcing my argument about procedure; for those are matters which it will not be possible properly to debate in the manner in which we debated—no one today is prepared to say that we were wasting our time in doing so—month after month and word by word the contents of the British Nationality Act 1981. We shall be denied that opportunity to consider in detail the situation of different categories of persons at present associated with the territory of Hong Kong or to find methods of defining their status, in so far as that lies with us, which do not create the openings for ambiguity, misunderstanding and deception which lie in what is proposed at present. Although we shall have a

Committee stage on the Bill, it will not provide us with the opportunity to do what it is the duty of this House to do in enacting new British nationality law.

Mr. Mark Robinson: It is always slightly daunting to follow the right hon. Member for South Down (Mr. Powell), especially when he brings a perspective to our debates which often has a slightly different sense and direction from what we have heard previously. I cannot say that I agree with the points that he raised about nationality, but my reasons will become clear during my speech.
I welcome this opportunity to speak for the first time in a debate on Hong Kong. Contrary to the Private Eye style of the right hon. Member for Leeds, East (Mr. Healey), who took us on a tour d'horizon of his thoughts on the contribution of my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister in the negotiations, I should like to pay tribute to my right hon. Friend and to my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State, as well as to the Governor of Hong Kong, our ambassador in Beijing and their staff, who have done so much to bring this difficult negotiation to such a successful conclusion. The outcome—what we see in 1997 and beyond—will be a testimony to that agreement. It has not been easy, and the task that has been performed will be seen not just as historic but as having a special place in our experience of decolonisation.
All the previous negotiations that we have had to bring independence to other of our former colonies have not had the perspective and have not required the very special considerations of this one, not least because, rather than being a process of handing independence to a former colony, it has been a process of transferring sovereignty back to another power, and at the same time providing the conditions under which the community in Hong Kong can go on governing and existing within that system and in the style to which it has become accustomed under our own Government.
I had the opportunity to visit Hong Kong in the summer, and I pay tribute not only to the authorities there but to the Executive Council and UMELCO for the trouble that they took to ensure that I was made fully aware of their views on the developments. It has been brought home to me how important it is to keep the people of Hong Kong informed through the Executive Council about what is happening in the negotiations at every stage. The degree to which that information has been provided and the essential importance of confidentiality throughout this difficult process to ensure the success of the negotiations are not always appreciated in this country.
One of the main concerns expressed to me while I was in Hong Kong can perhaps never be legislated for in this Bill or any other legislation. The principal worry is about what will happen if the situation in China after 1997 differs from the present position. A parallel purpose to negotiations such as this one is to build trust and understanding. While bearing in mind China's record in honouring international agreements, we must not forget that Hong Kong's present position in terms of Government and the economy could have been upset by the Chinese Government at any time that that Government had the will to do so. It will be helpful, to remember that aspect during the process of confidence building which will be so important both before and after 1997.
It is essential for the British Government to help and to be involved in that process of confidence building. I associate myself with the remarks of my hon. Friend the Member for Boothferry (Sir P. Bryan) in welcoming the appointment of Mr. Aikers-Jones as the next Chief Secretary to the Government of Hong Kong. He is well known in the former colony and the territory, and his role will be important as we move through the 1980s and early 1990s building that necessary confidence.
It is a matter not just of the British Government building confidence with the people of Hong Kong, but of building confidence between the Chinese Government and the people of Hong Kong, and that is where the drafting of the basic law is so important. I fully understand the fact that the British Government's view is that the drafting of the basic law will be a matter for the Government of China, but the way in which the Chinese Government draft that basic law, and the process of consultation with the people of Hong Kong—the words "the people of Hong Kong" are used — will be extremely important factors in determining how the people of Hong Kong view their future as they move towards 1997.
We have heard about the need to keep the House informed of developments in Hong Kong. Clearly, it is necessary for hon. Members to be kept informed by my right hon. and learned Friend the Foreign Secretary of how important developments evolve in the months and years ahead. The fact that my right hon. and learned Friend was unable to give us the title of the category determining the status of people in Hong Kong who qualify is evidence of that consultation. I do not necessarily feel that it would be right to make this report annually because we must consider what information should be included in, and what should be left out of, the report. If the House is informed of important developments as they evolve, it may help to allay the fear of some hon. Members, including myself, that Hong Kong may will not be seriously discussed in the Chamber after the passage of the Bill. Indeed, it is important for the matter to be discussed again so that the people of Hong Kong may have confidence that we are continuing to take an interest during the transition period.
I shall now consider that part of the schedule which refers to nationality. I was pleased to hear my right hon. and learned Friend the Foreign Secretary say to the House, after mentioning the title "British National (Overseas)", that this title was agreed in consultation with the Executive Council. Of course, that will create some controversy in Hong Kong, especially because "Hong Kong" is not included in the title. I hope that people in Hong Kong realise how difficult that inclusion would have been, in view of the sensitivities that would have been expressed by Beijing—hon. Members will obviously understand this—if "Hong Kong" had been used in the title after 1997.
In that respect I agree with the right hon. and learned Member for Aberavon (Mr. Morris) that it is important for the passport to come into operation not on the date on which the agreement comes into force, but well in advance. That is important not only for those who will be the beneficiaries of these documents in enabling them to become used to them and to use them, but for Governments of other countries in helping them to become familiar with the documents and accept them at their ports of entry. Documents of this nature will be of assistance and

of use only if other Governments are prepared to accept them. I hope that my right hon. and learned Friend will do what he can through his good offices to ensure that the documents are accepted by other countries at ports of entry.
The procedure of an Order in Council to bring in the regulations may be unusual, but, from the outset, this process has required special and different measures from those required for other matters. So I, for one, am prepared to accept the procedure in the hope that, when the orders are laid in draft before the House, we shall have ample and adequate opportunity to debate them.
Before leaving the subject of nationality I should like to refer to a residual problem faced by the Hong Kong Government—that of the Vietnamese refugees. When I was in Hong Kong it was made very clear to me that the process of the settlement of refugees was becoming very difficult. I was asked whether it might be possible for Britain to take a few more refugees, if only to give confidence to countries such as the United States and Canada, which are still thinking of taking more refugees, but which are asking, not what the British Government have done, but what they are doing at the moment to help to solve the problem. I hope that the Minister will be able to give us some assurance on that point when he sums up.
I see the Bill as an important step in the process towards the implementation of the agreement reached with China. The step is not just important, but necessary, because, as we heard earlier, it is essential, as part of the agreement, that the Bill is adopted both by this House and by the other place by June.
I feel that the agreement will give the people of Hong Kong an excellent opportunity to continue after 1997 with the considerable achievements and way of life that they have developed. I wish them every success in that objective. With common sense on both sides, I believe that the People's Republic of China also has a tremendous amount to gain from the agreement and from its successful implementation at least during the 50-year period and, I hope, during a period longer than that envisaged in the agreement.

Mr. Andrew Faulds: I welcome the hon. Member for Newport, West (Mr. Robinson) to that small, select club of those hon. Members who have been concerned over the years and will continue to be concerned with Hong Kong. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will take part in future debates on these issues, if we ever have the chance to debate them fully. I endorse nearly every word that the hon. Gentleman said. It is a happy change that there should be such agreement between both sides of the House.
We have done well with Hong Kong so far, both as regards Government policy and the endorsement of that policy by the House. However, we have to maintain that happy record. Confidence has flooded back into Hong Kong since the signing of the joint agreement. We, as the responsible power, have to help to maintain that confidence. We, as parliamentarians, have to show that we intend to take full parliamentary responsibility for the affairs of that territory and for the interests of its people from here on in.
I am sorry to have to say that I am not convinced that, by introducing the Order in Council procedure, we guarantee the proper parliamentary oversight of matters as


they develop with respect to Hong Kong, particularly the sensitive issues of citizenship and nationality. The Order in Council procedure suggests that the House is expected simply to endorse whatever decision the Government comes to. As I understand it, an order has to be accepted in toto or negated. There will be no real possibility of disagreement in debate requiring a review or a rethink of the Government's will. Questions of citizenship are much too sensitive and complex to be left to that somewhat "take it or leave it" method of introducing the changes in nationality law that we shall have to introduce over the next few months.
The House should and must have full powers of scrutiny, untrammelled by the restraints of the yea or nay approach that the Government want. I strongly endorse the argument put so ably by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Aberavon (Mr. Morris), that if the Government intend to proceed with the draft procedure plan, we should have draft orders with green edges so that the House can make its view known on these matters before the Government come here with a cut-and-dried suggestion to which we must say yes or no.
There is understandable concern in Hong Kong—it was expressed to us the other day by members of the Executive Council visiting this country—about the title of the new status. A number of names have been suggested, but—not surprisingly—not to the acceptance of all the parties. The dreadful, anonymous title of British National (Overseas) announced by the Foreign Secretary today surely cannot be acceptable. I find it difficult to accept that the members of the Executive Council who have been consulted are happy about that inexact title.
What is wrong with the inclusion of the territorial title "Hong Kong" in the nomenclature? I understand the matter of Chinese sensitivities, but perhaps on one or two issues we should argue that the people of Hong Kong have sensitivities, too. I personally do not see why the name "Hong Kong" should not be included in the title that those people are to bear as they live their lives in Hong Kong and—perhaps more importantly—travel abroad.

Mr. Tom Clarke: What my hon. Friend says is very convincing. However, does he have any reason to think that the Chinese themselves would object to the nomenclature that he suggests?

Mr. Faulds: I cannot confirm or deny the Chinese view. However, it has been suggested that there might be some sensitivity on the part of the Chinese if that particular title were to be included. If there is no Chinese sensitivity perhaps we should examine the matter very carefully again.
I am worried about this matter. Surely foreign immigration officials will be less likely to question entitlements to travel or to enter if they can immediately envisage the country in question, instead of being confronted with the dreadful, anonymous title of British National (Overseas) that our Hong Kong friends must endure.
I am sorry that the Minister who is to reply to the debate is not present at the moment. There is another question that I hope he will deal with. What are the Government's intentions towards the 4,000, 5,000 or 6,000 people—mainly of Indian extraction but including a number of Portuguese and other original nationalities—who may be

left in limbo as stateless persons because they are non-Chinese and live outwith Hong Kong? They must have the assurance of some protected future as recognised citizens with a specific status. I raised this point earlier today, and the Foreign Secretary's unknowing response—I am not being uncharitable—was not reassuring. I hope that the Minister will put us in the picture about the Government's intentions towards the limited number of people who may be left stateless.
Finally, it is entirely the responsibility of the Government and of the House to gain universal acceptance for the new passport. There must be no embarrassment for Hong Kongers at any immigration desk anywhere in the world. The Government has to insist on the recognition and acceptability of that new passport. It should not be issued in dribs and drabs over the years with the result that, for a considerable time, two different passports might be in use. That would lead to all sorts of questions and muddles. The new passport should be introduced over a designated and limited period. I accept that the registration of 3·5 million people in the new form of citizenship must be a longer process and start earlier.
I regret to have to say that I do not think that the Government have been sensitive enough about citizenship and nationality. Such matters will affect confidence in Hong Kong, externally and internally. That is the strongest argument for allowing the House more oversight than Orders in Council allow. The Government must think again about their intended procedure in legislating for the future state of the people of Hong Kong. That must be in allowing the House much more opportunity to debate these matters in detail before the Government come to their own decision about how they should be pursued.

Mr. Robert Adley: I am always pleased to speak after the hon. Member for Warley, East (Mr. Faulds) in debates on Hong Kong. I agree that one of the most difficult issues concerns the non-Chinese minority in Hong Kong, especially Indians, many of whom left India before that country became independent. Unlike almost everyone else in Hong Kong, they have no citizenship or status other than as citizens of Hong Kong.
The Bill might not arouse the greatest passion in the House or in Britain, but it arouses the greatest passion in the bosoms of the Chinese people and their leaders. The treaty of Nanjing has always been regarded as a great insult. We are today taking positive legislative steps to remove an insulting blot on the history of China. I do not think that it is indiscreet of me to recall that when, about a year ago, my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House asked me whether I thought there would be trouble in the House when today arrived, I said that I did not think so because hon. Members were sensitive to the realities of the political situation and to our responsibilities towards the people of Hong Kong in so far as we could carry them out.
In view of what has been said so far, I believe that we might be criticised for losing sight of the political reality of what we are doing in terms of the Beijing Government and the British Government influencing Hong Kong. Dr. L. K. Ding, who many of us have met here or in Hong Kong, recently criticised some of the UMELCO members in Hong Kong for going to London rather than to Beijing to find answers to the questions that were worrying them. The political reality is that the ultimate answers lie outwith the ambit of the House.
The right hon. Member for South Down (Mr. Powell) made a speech which was fair in so far as he implied that the House is in danger of misleading people in Hong Kong about what we are prepared, willing or able to give them in regard to passport status. We all know what is politically possible. We should remember that this is essentially a political Bill. The political reality is that to imply to the Chinese Government that the takeover of Hong Kong by China is so unacceptable as to be likely to cause 3 million Chinese citizens in Hong Kong to want to rush to these or other shores is deliberately and provocatively insulting to the Government in Beijing—the very Government on whom the welfare of the people of Hong Kong will depend.

Mr. Lawrence: Does my hon. Friend agree that it is important for the Peking Government to be aware of the strength of feeling in Britain, which is reflected in Parliament, and our fears? If they are aware of the strength of our feelings they are more likely, are they not, to accommodate them?

Mr. Adley: My hon. and learned Friend presupposes, as he has done many times, that the objectives of Parliament, of Beijing and of the people of Hong Kong are somehow different. We are all trying to retain the prosperity and stability of Hong Kong. One of the worst ways in which to do that is to go around insulting one of the three parties to the arrangement.
The right hon. Member for Leeds, East (Mr. Healey) was, in his customary way, robustly critical of my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister—or so he thinks. His comments made him sound like a sycophantic poodle compared to recent articles by people such as Brian Tisdall which have appeared in Hong Kong. Of all the criticisms that might be levelled at my right hon. Friend—there are many, but there is no need to repeat them—the one that cannot be levelled at her is that she does not care about the people of Hong Kong. Indeed, it could be said that her mistakes at the beginning were caused by her having too much concern for them. Her burning concern for them and their future nearly undid the conclusion of the agreement.
I mentioned the Tisdall article only because its title was, "Less Than Frank Affair". That was the point that the right hon. Member for South Down was trying to make. Everyone knows that the reality of our immigration law is at Heathrow airport rather than on pieces of paper. Nobody in his right mind, whether in Hong Kong, Britain or China, suggests that we are creating an open door policy to enable the Chinese population of Hong Kong to come to Britain. It is our duty to disabuse people of that view, if there be any.
Success for the people of Hong Kong lies not in enabling them to have a bolthole in the United Kingdom, but in retaining a prosperous, stable and free society in Hong Kong. The right hon. Member for South Down said that we should not legislate on the assumption that a future Chinese Government would wish to abide by the agreement. I disagree fundamentally. All the evidence shows that since 1949 the Government in Beijing have not wanted to disturb the status of Hong Kong. If, in the heat of their revolution and in the passion of the cultural revolution, they never lifted the telephone to turn off the water supply—the simple way in which to bring Hong

Kong to its knees—there is every reason to believe that the last thing that they want to do is to disturb Hong Kong's stability.
We are right to legislate on the assumption that the Chinese mean what they say and have every intention of sticking to their policy. However, politics and certainty make poor bedfellows. That applies to any country, not merely China. I am delighted to have heard today so much enthusiasm for the agreement and the future status of Hong Kong. 'Twas not ever thus! Indeed, when two or three years ago in Hong Kong I had the temerity to say some of the things that have been said tonight, the Hong Kong Government reacted by putting the security services on to me. Nevertheless, on occasions it takes a long time for some people to learn the political facts of life.
It is proposed to create the status of British National (Overseas). In this respect I disagree with the hon. Member for Warley, East. If any title on any passport were to imply any retention of sovereignty by Her Majesty's Government after 1997, that surely would fall foul of the need to clarify beyond peradventure that Hong Kong becomes Chinese in 1997.

Mr. Faulds: I had no such intention in asking that the title of the territory should be left in the new nomenclature. There must surely be Chinese terminology for those islands which could be contained in the title. It might not be Hong Kong but something else, and would simply designate for immigration officials — who are not renowned for their high intelligence when dealing with cases under pressure — that this is the country from which these people come.

Mr. Adley: With his great knowledge of the Chinese language, the hon. Gentleman will know that the territory is known as Xianggang, rather than Hong Kong. If he seriously suggests that a passport containing the word Xianggang is likely to be decipherable to an immigration official at Heathrow, he shares a higher opinion of that official's charitableness than I do.

Mr. Faulds: I do not think that that Chinese title would be immediately recognisable by immigration officials. I am simply arguing that the retention of the name Hong Kong would be immediately recognisable, and that does not to me suggest any retention of sovereignty whatever. That would not be my wish in this matter.

Mr. Adley: I have not asked my right hon. and learned Friend, and I do not propose to do so now, whether this point has been discussed with the Government of the People's Republic of China. My own view is that it would be offensive to a Government if a part of their territory continued to appear on the passport of other nationals after that territory had reverted to their sovereignty. However, I may be entirely wrong.

Mr. Stanbrook: If there is any question of derogation of sovereignty in the eyes of the Chinese Republic, surely it is contained in the fact that 3 million people will be entitled to carry passports who will be called British Nationals (Overseas). That passport will be issued by the British Government and will entitle the holder to the diplomatic and consular protection of Her Majesty's Government around the world for at least 50 years, and the lifetime of everyone who holds such a passport. Surely that is utterly inconsistent with my hon. Friend's theory about sovereignty not being an issue.

Mr. Adley: My hon. Friend is a lawyer and I am not. We are sailing in uncharted waters and are trying to find a way of doing things which provides satisfaction to the sensibilities of different groups of people. I am prepared to accept, first, the good will of my right hon. and learned Friend the Foreign Secretary and the Minister of. State; secondly, the energy which I am sure they have attached to trying to find a solution; and, thirdly, their assurances that this is the best solution that they have come up with. This is not an easy problem. I do not believe that it is a lawyers' problem. It is a political problem of great sensitivity which we have never faced before and which, we can safely say, we shall never face again.
I do not believe that 3 million, 300,000, 30,000, 3,000, 300 or even 30 Hong Kong Chinese will want to come here. However, if 3 million Hong Kong Chinese were to come here, I doubt whether there would be any increase in our unemployment statistics! Indeed, it could well be that in a short time their arrival would reduce those statistics.
There must be flexibility throughout all these discussions. The Government and the overwhelming majority of people in Hong Kong understand that. At this stage it would not be wise in any way to write into legislation words which imply that Chinese nationality and sovereignty are infringed.
The schedule to the Bill refers to the problem of statelessness, and the Government recognise that they have a role to play. I hope that it is not impertinent to suggest that the Government in Beijing may consider that they have a role to play as well. To suggest that the Chinese Government should offer citizenship to non-Chinese British dependent territory passport holders would be regarded as unusual at the very least, and probably by such people in Hong Kong as undesirable. However, I place on record my personal opinion that, if the Government of the People's Republic were to make such an offer to the Indian citizens of Hong Kong, that would go a long way towards showing their good will, good faith and willingness to bend one of the most fundamental rules of Chinese life—that Chinese race and citizenship are intermingled and exclusive.
A country such as China whose Government have shown themselves willing to produce the principle of one country, two systems might at least consider the proposition that its Government have some role to play in the future status of non-Chinese British dependent territory citizens such as the Indian population in Hong Kong.
My right hon. and learned Friend referred to future constitutional changes in Hong Kong. I do not propose to make a long speech detailing what these should be, as that would be impertinent, unnecessary and inappropriate. I believe that China wants to maintain stability and prosperity, and I also believe that she does not have a fixed and detailed idea of the precise proposals that she wishes to see introduced into Hong Kong. I do not believe that the Chinese Government have worked out a precise form of democratic change in Hong Kong which they believe to be the best answer to the problem. However, I am sure they believe that the people of Hong Kong are the best judges of what this should be.
Too much democracy could be indigestible. We are all aware that the proposition of one man, one vote immediately could leave the way open to troublemakers in Hong Kong. We all know who they are. They come from the island of Taiwan. They are extremely anxious to

sow discord wherever possible between the Government of the People's Republic, the Government in London, and the people of Hong Kong. I urge caution on those who advocate immediate one man, one vote in Hong Kong.
I also urge caution, care and concern on the Government in London and the Government in Beijing. I am worried about a conflict of aspirations between the young Chinese population of Hong Kong, who so far have been denied any democracy, and the cosy stability implicit in the relationship between the British Government, the Chinese Government and the Hong Kong Administration who have carried these negotiations through. There is a demand for change among the young people of Hong Kong which is not reflected in the views that are often put to many hon. Members. This will have to be watched carefully, because the frustration of the ambitions of the young Chinese population of Hong Kong could disrupt stability.
I risk offending yet again the establishment in Hong Kong by saying that many young Chinese there look forward to the day when the Chief Secretary is not an Englishman with a double-barrelled name.
Basically, we have this agreement or no agreement. That has always been the proposition. The alternative of drifting along to 1997 and then seeing what happens is not one which any responsible politician in Britain, China or Hong Kong could possibly advocate. On that basis, I am delighted to support the Bill and I look forward to continuing our interest in Hong Kong for many years to come.

Mr. Russell Johnston: The hon. Member for Christchurch (Mr. Adley) has been bold and independent in his comments for a long time, cutting a swathe through the political countryside like one of the steam trains to which he is so attached. I sometimes think that he goes a wee bit too far.
During our first debate on Hong Kong, there was a general and warm welcome for the historic negotiations. However, some people — and I am not excluded; not many democrats in other political parties would be excluded either—felt that, despite the promises, there was a residual uncertainty and doubt because we were disposing of our responsibilities for 5 million people without consulting them. I still retain that doubt, but it is part of the requisite political equipment of a Liberal to be imbued at all times with the hope that things will eventually get better.
However, even if it is a difficult issue, it should not be avoided. I accept that the Chinese Government have been responsive and flexible during the negotiations, but as the issue is of great concern to many of the people of Hong Kong it would be wrong to dismiss it.
The hon. Member for Christchurch referred briefly to a pungent article in the South China Morning Post on 28 December. It referred to a press conference given by the Prime Minister, to which the right hon. Member for Leeds, East (Mr. Healey) referred. The article states:
No fewer than one quarter of the 30 questions put to Mrs. Thatcher at her press conference raised, in differing ways, the moral issues that arise, or ought to arise, out of the joint declaration.
It was in her reply to Emily Lau of the Far Eastern Economic Review that Mrs. Thatcher showed herself at her insensitive worst.


Miss Lau asked whether it was morally defensible to deliver over 5 million people … or whether it is 'really true that in international politics the highest form of morality is one's own national interests'?
By her refusal to face up to the question and its implications Mrs. Thatcher gave the unfortunate impression that she would not recognise a moral issue if it was a double-decker bus in the middle of the Sahara desert.

Mr. Adley: For the benefit of declarations of interest, it may be worth bearing in mind that Miss Lau is in the happy position of having a British husband and a British passport, which may sometimes influence her views.

Mr. Johnston: That is perfectly possible. All I am saying is that it is wrong to ignore certain facts. Unlike the hon. Gentleman, who referred to the pressure for one man, one vote tomorrow, I never found anyone in Hong Kong who put forward that point of view. It is, therefore, rather odd that he should put up that argument in order to bash it down when no one is proposing it. A great many people are concerned and worried about the future, and it would be foolish to ignore that. After all, this is the last opportunity for the House to discuss these matters in the round.
I would give general support to the pressure for an annual debate on Hong Kong. The right hon. Member for Leeds, East logically and clearly pointed out that we have annual debates on the Army, Navy, Air Force and the European Community. The Foreign Secretary appears to think that the repetitive debates on the European Community have become somewhat boring, and I have some sympathy with him. However, those debates take place every two or three months. There is a strong case for the Government being compelled on a regular basis—whether or not annual — to debate the position as it evolves in Hong Kong.

Mr. Richard Needham: When I was in Hong Kong I met a considerable number of extremely intelligent, capable young people who wanted a one man, one vote system. That does not mean that it would be wise to introduce that system within the next three months. My hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch (Mr. Adley) was right to say that there are people, who are not extreme in any way, who want to work towards a one man, one vote society.

Mr. Johnston: That is not what the hon. Member for Christchurch said. I agree that there are people who want to work towards the phasing in of a one man, one vote society. I do not think that any of us would oppose such a move, least of all the hon. Member for Christchurch.
I wish briefly to itemise the issues of outstanding importance, and shall begin with the drafting of the basic law. That will be very difficult given the dramatic difference between Chinese and Hong Kong law, both civil and criminal. As the right hon. and learned Member for Aberavon (Mr. Morris) said, in civil law the Chinese tend to fuse the state and the Government, while that does not happen either in Britain or Hong Kong. There is no doubt also that the Chinese are far more punitive in their criminal law than has been the custom in Hong Kong. Is it possible to ensure that a Hong Kong judge or prominent lawyer is included in the drafting committee? It is important to have someone of that standing and calibre talking directly to his Chinese colleagues.
We have never really debated the position of the Governor, but it is obviously central to the form of government in Hong Kong in future. It is difficult to be clear about the independence that the Governor will have.
Knowing the Government's great belief in these matters, it is worth commenting that nowhere in the draft agreement is it said that voting in Hong Kong should be by secret ballot. That may be an oversight, but one does not usually believe that Governments are guilty only of oversight. They are usually more subterranean than that.
We are still not clear about the extent of the involvement of the Hong Kong people in the Joint Liaison Group. During the last debate there was a consensus across the House that Hong Kong people from both sides of the fence should serve on that group if possible. The right hon. Member for Leeds, East dwelt on that point at some length.
It is worth quoting again from the article in the South China Morning Post because of the confusion in the heart of the Government in presenting this matter, which is a bad thing. It states:
It was on the composition of the joint liaison group that Mrs. Thatcher managed to get it so very wrong.
When she said that 'the Governor, of course, will be on it. No question. The Governor will be on it.' Sir Edward Youde tried to attract her attention but found it difficult to do so with the burly frame of her press officer, Mr. Bernard Ingham, in between.
But eventually Mrs. Thatcher got the message that the composition had not yet been decided. However, she was not to be deterred and went on: 'I should be absolutely astonished if the Governor is not on it.'
This major diplomatic gaffe has put the Foreign Office in a difficult position because there is absolutely no intention that Sir Edward will be a member.
With respect to the Prime Minister and the difficulties of flying across the world, I should have thought that it should be possible for the head of our state to get these things right. The gentleman who wrote the article summed it up rather well when he said:
Sir Geoffrey Howe, the Foreign Secretary, sat alongside Mrs. Thatcher with his head in his hands. This may have been in part due to the fact he had been celebrating his birthday the evening before. But more likely it was because he was appalled at what he was hearing. How much better it would have been had he taken the press conference himself because he is, above all else, a decent and honest man"—
and so say all of us.
We must consider the nationality question to which many hon. Members have referred. We now have what UMELCO calls "the nomenclature". I did not know that that was the meaning of the word. The former British dependent territories citizenship will become British National (Overseas) citizenship. We must be assured that the international protection offered by that is no less than is offered by the BDTC. Indeed, I hope that the protection will be a little more.
A Hong Kong Chinese told me about his uncle who lives in the United States who wanted, as was his custom each year, to visit Mexico for a holiday. Suddenly the Mexicans decided that the BDTC was not appropriate and that he required a visa. They were willing to provide that visa, but said that he would have to wait six months. Such a practical problem is much more serious if one has to move about for business reasons. It is a problem, and I agree with what the hon. Member for Warley, East (Mr. Faulds) said about it.

Mr. James Hill: How does the hon. Gentleman visualise the conflict between the Chinese


and British Governments when discussing the merits of an exit or entry visa for Hong Kong? How will protection in any form be offered by the British Government with the new passport?

Mr. Johnston: The problem is not with the Chinese Government but with other Governments in other parts of the world. The problem exists now with BDTC passport holders, because many countries are now not so willing to let them into their countries as full British passport holders.

Mr. J. Enoch Powell: What remedy does the hon. Member propose?

Mr. Johnston: The only remedy is for the British Government, through bilateral negotiations, to persuade other Governments to treat the passport in an appropriate fashion and to allow free passage. After all, that is the whole point of having a passport. We have some responsibility towards the Hong Kong Chinese in that regard.
As the hon. Member for Warley, East said, the non-ethnic Chinese should have the assurance of citizenship. That is important. I am sure that many hon. Members have received correspondence, such as I have received, from the Council of Hong Kong Indians Association, which says:
A typical example of an ethnic Indian, and by direct consequence of his wife and descendants, is a man born and raised in India at a time when India was still governed by the British. In 1947, at the time of Partition, he faced a choice of staying in India and claiming Indian citizenship and nationality (his birthright) or removing to another part of the Commonwealth and retaining his British citizenship and nationality (also his birthright). The ethnic Indian chose the latter and gave up his right to Indian citizenship and nationality. He did so because he thought he would be secure in being a member of that community whose way of life he had adopted, whose laws and systems he respected, whose institutions he revered and to whom he deliberately gave his allegiance.
We have some responsibility to such people.
It is clear that someone must have a care for the Vietnamese refugees who number between 12,000 and 14,000. A group of us is to see the Home Office about this matter tomorrow, and I hope that the Minister will refer to it.
For those who fear the change because of their previous loyalty to the British Crown there should be an open door. I am always unhappy to stress that, for the reasons set out so well by the hon. Member for Christchurch, because it suggests that the agreement will not work when I believe that it will. But we must insist on responsibility for those who gave us their trust. That is important.
The amendment in the name of the right hon. Member for South Down (Mr. Powell) has been referred to by many hon. Members. I agree that it is unsatisfactory for a new form of citizenship to be established by Order in Council. The right hon. Gentleman's argument is fair and right. We need an assurance that arrangements will not be rushed. I support the request for assurances that the right hon. Member for Leeds, East made in support of the amendment tabled by the right hon. Member for South Down —[Interruption.] The right hon. Member for South Down chuckles gently, but strange things happen in the House of Commons.
As a Liberal I cannot avoid saying that I find it sad that, despite all the principles that nations accept when they sign the United Nations charter, their leaders remain

acquisitive of land and people. I suspect that an open and unpressured referendum of the Hong Kong people on their future would produce a Singapore-type solution. We shall never know whether that suspicion is right.
I wish the venture well and, from the Liberal Bench, pledge our continuing concern for the well-being of Hong Kong's citizens. We in Britain created this remarkable place and administered it quite well. However, its economic success is evidently its own achievement. The People's Republic of China has shown a great openness. I am sure that that will continue and that Hong Kong's prosperity and success will also continue.

Mr. James Hill: I spoke in the debate on 16 May, but, unfortunately, I have not been involved since. My fear then was that we were rushing headlong into a debate with the Chinese Government when we held no trump cards. The House must give my right hon. and learned Friend the Foreign Secretary full praise for making the best out of a weak hand. He has achieved a diplomatic victory. For it to be accepted so far by the three parties is amazing.
The problems are just about to begin. I say that because the shadow Front Bench is not taking the subject seriously if we judge the right hon. Member for Leeds, East (Mr. Healey) on his dedication to the issue by his knockabout turn, in which there were several harmless, even well-meaning, jokes—about the elephant, for instance, He, perhaps, made a Freudian slip, but he did not present a case on behalf of the Opposition. Surely he should not have treated the issue in such a casual way when 5 million people are waiting to hear what the future holds for them. Luckily, I have never been debarred from going anywhere in Hong Kong. Certainly no security was ever put at my door. That may be because I never had the good fortune to accept Government hospitality. My many visits there were on business, and I see the matter simply from the business man's point of view.
The name of the passport is a trivial matter, but the recognition by immigration authorities throughout the world of the value placed on, and strength of resolve of the British Government for, the passport is of great importance. In Committee I hope that we shall not be over-detailed in our discussion of the trivia of what is an extremely important part of the Bill.
My impression is that sometimes we are too bland. My hon. friend the Member for Christchurch (Mr. Adley) told us how wonderful the Chinese are. It sounded as though adorable governors would take over without upsetting the apple cart and that everyone would be allowed to make money galore in Hong Kong, while on the other side of the fence Chinese citizens would see this vast wealth being created. It is obvious to any politician that radical politicians on the other side of the fence will say to the populous, "This is quite unfair. You must not let this continue. Over there, 5 million Chinese are living it up, while you are working and working." There will be political tensions, which will be exacerbated by young and up-coming Chinese politicians. That will have to be carefully monitored by the Chinese Government, and it must be seriously watched by whatever form of government there is in Hong Kong in the year 2000.
The Bill marks the end of the road. We have had discussions, and almost all hon. Members have met UMELCO members and heard their fears. Many of them


do not have so many fears now. I applaud the tenacity of the Foreign Office for that, because it has done a wonderful job in reassuring them. When discussing a business entirety, such as a vast free port, which is the focus of most of the shipping in one part of the world, the difficulty is, as I know to my cost, that it can be destroyed almost overnight by the work force, poor management or political intervention.
Too little has been said in all our debates about the generator of the prosperity. Everyone is agreed that the only way to get this agreement off the ground is through increased prosperity for the citizens of Hong Kong, and for the mirror image over the border with its enterprise zones to come up strong. To do that there must be a first-class port.
Some people may think that we should not consider such trivia today as they do not relate to the broad brush of passports, the finalisation of Committee members, whether the Governor or somone else is appointed by Her Majesty, and the finalisation of the six members on each side, but wealth can be created only if the sea port operates well. First, it must remain a free port. It would be disastrous if it became anything else. Secondly, it must have an extremely good shipping register. No port is any good without ships which recognise it as their home base. Thirdly, it must have extremely good training for seamen. The dividing line there will be whether the Chinese Government step in to designate that a percentage of that training should be from citizens across the border. I correct myself. It will be not a border, but a line on the map. There will be great problems if certain shipping lines are debarred from using the port. Will the shipping tonnage of the Taiwanese be admitted, or that of South Africa or Israel? Will there be political demarcation in shipping terms?
There will be many problems. The shippers in Hong Kong are well aware of them, and so far are pleased with the provisions. The World-wide Shipping Agency has already said to my right hon. and learned Friend the Foreign Secretary that shipping is a focal point of Hong Kong's prosperity, as is the monetary system. Will the monetary system continue to be linked to the dollar? It was a wise decision a few months ago to link it to the dollar. Will that linkage to the dollar be allowed to remain, or will the monetary system change completely? If it does, there will be a breakdown in stock market participation and in prosperity for a time.
The worst problem will be the psychological problem of the families who escaped from Communist China. China is being reasonable at the moment, but it is a Communist state and people fled from it in fear. There may be nothing that those families need fear, but they still have the abiding fear that when the Communists walk in, even with smiling faces, at some date, perhaps not the same week, year or decade, they will be on a list. The Chinese Government must make it perfectly clear that there will be no victimisation, because if there were it would be fatal for the harmony and prosperity of Hong Kong.
We all know of Chinese people who are being coerced by other countries to accept their passports. It is easy for the rich to move out and to make a base elsewhere. However, for the majority of families who fled and who work in small businesses and factories, making a good

income, the matter will be tinged with the fear of how the Chinese bureaucrats—not the leaders—will treat them when they want advice, travel permits or opportunities for their children.
Perhaps I am a pessimist, but I am not as pessimistic as I was on 16 May. There will be a lot of good will around, and the Chinese Government will be able to feed on it. I am sure that UMELCO and everyone else wish to make a great success of it. It must be a success, or the House of Commons will always have to bear the stigma of the Bill. I remember the euphoria with which we turned Rhodesia into Zimbabwe, but none of us would now praise what we did. We had high hopes, but we did not see what became fairly obvious after a short time. In this case, we have 12 years—

Mr. Johnston: There was no alternative with Rhodesia. We could have done nothing else. The hon. Gentleman is a practical man; he must face reality.

Mr. Hill: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman was speaking about the practicalities of the Hong Kong decision, not the Rhodesian decision. I fully accept the practicalities of the Hong Kong decision. That colony cannot remain independent when mainland China controls its water and most of its raw materials, and holds the key to the prosperity of the entire region.
I am much more hopeful now than I have been for a long time. I hope that the Chinese Government will make more positive statements to reassure those who fled China because they were anti-Communist. We must also solve the problem of the recognition of the passport and the changeover date. The latter will be one of the most difficult matters that the House must debate. We must get the wording of the Bill in order so that we shall never have to bear the stigma of having failed the Hong Kong Chinese.

Dr. John Marek: I echo the sentiments of the hon. Member for Southampton, Test (Mr. Hill). We must succeed. If we do not, not only must the House bear a stigma, but it will have disappointed more than 5 million people in Hong Kong. However, I must take issue with the hon. Gentleman's comment that the Opposition do not take the debate seriously. The debate is crucial, because it affects the future of more than 5 million people in Hong Kong. There has been agreement on both sides of the House on the measures that have been taken and on the deal made between the People's Republic of China and the Government. I hope that the worries that are coming to the surface will not become minor disagreements, and that the House will approach the problem with a bipartisan spirit.
Conservative Members—notably the hon. Member for Christchurch (Mr. Adley)—said that we are putting right an unequal treaty. I heartily endorse that. We should be proud of the fact that in 1997 we will put right that unequal treaty.
The People's Republic of China could have put pressure on this and previous Administrations and forced them to relinquish the administration of Hong Kong, because we would not have had the will and it would not have been prudent for us to do otherwise. But the Chinese have not done so. They have encouraged our administration of Hong Kong and been pleased to see it prosper. For that


reason, I have every confidence that, after 1997, Hong Kong will continue to prosper under the conditions that China has agreed will obtain there for at least 50 years.
However, that does not mean that after 1997 we can wash our hands of Hong Kong and tell its people that they must look to their new Government for protection, advice, economic advancement and the improvement of social conditions. We shall still have responsibility, because we shall have been the colonial power there for 100 years.
At present, few people in Hong Kong know what their new status will be. Of course, we have 13 years in which to remedy that, but I believe that it should be done within the next year or two. We must inform the people exactly what we propose to do, and the Orders in Council must be passed fairly quickly. Uncertainty is bad. It will be better for the people of Hong Kong to know their status and the privileges and protection their new passport will give them. I was pleased to hear what the Foreign Secretary said about the passport this afternoon.
Of course, there is a long way to go. The new passport will be called a British National (Overseas) passport. I agree with those who said that it would be impractical to insist on the words "Hong Kong" being included on the passport. Only 400 or 500 years ago Britain controlled parts of France round the Calais area. What would the French think if we insisted on issuing British passports entitled "British Overseas (Calais)" to the people who live in that area and want to have some connection with Britain? A period of 50 years might be different from 500 years. Nevertheless, 50 years is a long time, and hon. Members must try to imagine what opinions will be in the year 2047. At any rate, there is a provision for dual nationality, with citizens of one country having nationality in another country and holding a passport of that country. The passport of the country in which he does not reside does not have the name of another country on it and, for that reason, it would be wrong to insist on including the words "Hong Kong". I believe that "British National (Overseas)" will suffice, but that is only an off-the-cuff remark, having heard the name only a few hours ago.
However, I wish to know what the people of Hong Kong think about the name. I want, not an immediate, but a considered statement from them. I am not convinced that they have been consulted enough about what will happen to them, nor that they have been able to consider carefully enough what will happen to them and to give a considered opinion. That is one criticism of the road down which we have travelled so far. I am sure that the House will wish to receive a considered Hong Kong opinion in due course.
It is important that the Orders in Council should be laid quickly so that the people of Hong Kong can consider and comment upon them. Then when we debate the orders we shall have the benefit of their opinions. That is vital. It would be quite wrong for the House to debate such a matter after only a week or two. Any such debate would not be worth listening to and would hardly be worth reading afterwards.
I also endorse fully what my right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, East (Mr. Healey) said towards the end of his speech. If the order was not acceptable after a debate in the House, the Government should take it away without having a vote on it and bring back a suitably amended order in the light of that debate. I hope that that would not be regarded as a demonstration of any error by the Government then in office—whoever that Government might be, bearing in mind that there is a long time to go

and that there will be different Governments between now and 1997. I hope that it would not be regarded as some implicit defeat for the Government and, therefore, that they would not adopt such a proposal in any circumstances. If that is how the present Government want to do it, I suggest that the order should have green edges so that, if there is a clearly held opinion in the House or in Hong Kong that it needs amending the House will be prepared to come back on another day and spend additional time debating any amended order. This is important for Hong Kong as well, because the Hong Kong people want to know whether what is to happen to them will be insisted upon by this Government and whether it will be acceptable. They will want to comment and to know that we take our decisions in the light of their comment.
I do not want to labour the point because it has been mentioned by other hon. Members, but it is important that the passport is accepted by other countries. There is an onus on the Government of the United Kingdom in office at the time to say to third-party countries that this is the British National (Overseas) passport that they intend to issue to citizens of Hong Kong and that they would like to see that passport honoured in broadly the same way as a passport for a BDTC. The Government have a responsibility to back that up with guarantees if necessary. I shall be interested to hear what the Minister thinks of that suggestion.
No one should be stateless. Guarantees should be given by the Government well in advance of 1997 that no one will be left stateless in any circumstances. Such guarantees would remove the present cloud of anxiety. It may be only a small cloud at the moment, because not enough people know what is to happen to them and what their future is likely to be, but once the people of Hong Kong realise what is to happen to them they will begin to worry. They will become apprehensive. We have to lean over backwards to reassure them. One way of doing that will be to give an absolute guarantee that no one will be left stateless and that the United Kingdom Government will do all in their power to make sure that the new passport has the same rights and privileges as the passport to which Hong Kong people have been used in the past.
I do not believe that one person, one vote should he introduced tomorrow. However, I do not say that democracy is foreign to the far east and therefore that we should not worry too much because we have administered the colony well and one person, one vote should not play a significant part in the administrative life of the colony.
We are a democratic nation. We believe in our democracy and that in time, though not necessarily tomorrow, a nation state should be governed by the democratic method of one person, one vote. In a representative democracy there are different ways for people to govern themselves in a representative manner, but the essential criterion—the bottom line—is that for one person there is one vote.
I was glad to see in the speaking notes supplied to hon. Members by the UMELCO delegation, with whom hon. Members had a brief meeting towards the end of last week, that there are already 300 candidates for the district hoard elections and that it is looking to about 700 candidates in due course. That demonstrates a great interest in democracy and in the principle of one person, one vote.


I am in favour of that. But let us make haste slowly. It must be on the basis of an eventual representative form of government.
That has to be tied in with better consultation. I do not think that the consultation has been adequate. Cmnd. 9407 consulted. There was good faith. An attempt was made to consult in Hong Kong. But how many people did the independent monitoring team consult? Was it 3,000, 10,000 50,000 or 100,000? We must remember that there are 5 million people in the colony. I do not criticise the independent monitoring team, because within its terms of reference it did its best. When we embarked upon the first stage of introducing democracy into the colony, this form of consultation may have been the best. But the next form of consultation must be better. Eventually, the aim should be either a referendum on an issue or a direct election to some body, with the decision being made by that elected body. I do not think that there is any short cut to this. It will take time, but that is the aim that must be kept in sight.
I stress again the importance of general agreement between the two sides of the House about how this journey towards the transfer of sovereignty in Hong Kong from the United Kingdom to the People's Republic of China should go. I should like to see the two sides of the House acting in a bipartisan way on this journey. For that reason, I hope that the Government will listen carefully to what Opposition Members say. If they do not, and if we do not get a bipartisan approach in future years, it will not do the people of Hong Kong any good when a future Government say, "We are sorry. We had debates on this subject in 1985 or 1986. We do not agree with them, and we intend to change the legislation." I quite appreciate that it can be changed only to a minor extent, because it is subject to agreement between the People's Republic of China and the United Kingdom, but there can be minor changes, and the way that certain matters are dealt with up to 1997 can be changed. But it would be a tragedy if we did not act in a bipartisan way so that future Governments were forced to change their approach to this problem. If we can maintain a bipartisan approach, I am optimistic. I hope that we succeed. We have to succeed on this journey.

Mr. Roger Sims: The hon. Member for Wrexham (Dr. Marek) hoped that there would be a bipartisan approach to this matter. That has already been demonstrated in today's debate. The hon. Gentleman's speech was one of a number showing that, although there may be reservations on certain aspects of the Bill, such differences as there are are not along party lines and Hong Kong can know that it has friends on both sides of the House.
Shortly before visiting China with three or four parliamentary colleagues about 18 months ago I had, with them, the usual Foreign Office briefing, and it was most helpful. However, the clear advice we were given was that if the future of Hong Kong was raised in both China and Hong Kong we were to say absolutely nothing. Needless to say, in both China and Hong Kong the future of the territory was one of the main topics of conversation. In Beijing we had the opportunity to meet informally the members of both negotiating teams. They were the soul of discretion. Nevertheless, the kind of difficulties confronting them were clear. It is remarkable that in such a

relatively short time an agreement emerged from those negotiations. I join other hon. Members in congratulating my right hon. and learned Friend the Foreign Secretary. He, I know, would endorse the congratulations to the members of his negotiating team who achieved the agreement. Let us also pay tribute to the Chinese team. They had to make commitments which it cannot have been very easy to make.
The process began with the visit to China by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister in September 1982. I do not intend to continue the discussion about exactly what she said and how she said it. However, I recall that my right hon. Friend was criticised for even having raised the future of Hong Kong. She was absolutely right to do so. The inhabitants of Hong Kong were beginning to think about their future after 1997. In particular, commerce and industry in Hong Kong, which have to plan some time ahead and think of when and where they should place their investment, and upon which the prosperity of the people of Hong Kong depends, were concerned about what the future held. Events have proved that my right hon. Friend was absolutely right to take the initiative which she did. We have the agreement. It has been approved by both Houses of Parliament. The Bill is therefore the next logical step.
Paragraph 4 of the schedule refers to the Joint Liaison Group and makes it perfectly clear, as my right hon. and learned Friend the Foreign Secretary said this afternoon, that it will be composed of diplomats. A wide range of interests in Hong Kong are concerned about the future arrangments. Commercial, legal and religious interests and a whole range of organisations and individuals are involved. I assume that they will share in the work of the Joint Liaison Group by means of the sub-groups. I should be grateful if, in his reply, my hon. Friend the Minister of State could lift the veil a little more on what he anticipates will be the work of the sub-groups. I assume that membership of not only the sub-groups but the Joint Liaison Group will include Hong Kong Chinese as well as expatriate diplomats.
It is not difficult to understand the concern of the people of Hong Kong. I believe that we should be rather worried if we faced the prospect that in 12 years' time our country would be administered by a Government based elsewhere: not only a Government whose philosophy was unacceptable to us, but a Government from whose authority many of us might have fled. However, the people of Hong Kong are sensible and realistic. They have accepted the inevitability of 1997. There has been a remarkable exercise in terms of acquainting them with what has been happening and with the terms of the agreement. Simply to distribute 3 million copies of the agreement literally on the street corners of Hong Kong was quite an achievement. Efficient and effective work has been done by the assessment office. It has been able to demonstrate that the people of Hong Kong endorse the agreement. It is now incumbent upon Parliament to get the details right.
There has been understandable confusion in Hong Kong about the parliamentary procedures that surround the Bill. They are concerned in particular about the amendment that has been tabled by the right hon. Member for South Down (Mr. Powell) and my hon. Friend the Member for Orpington (Mr. Stanbrook). One can understand that the


people of Hong Kong may be confused about parliamentary procedures. We are often confused about exactly how they operate.
Unlike other aspects of the Bill, the orders dealing with nationality are to be subject to the affirmative resolution procedure. I endorse the concern which has been voiced in certain parts of the House over the fact that, at least on the face of it, it could mean that we have only an hour and a half in which to debate an order and that it cannot be amended. To be fair, in his comments this afternoon my right hon. and learned Friend said that we should have a full opportunity to debate the orders.
I hope that in the winding-up speech of my hon. Friend we shall hear just what form that full opportunity will take. It must clearly involve a debate lasting more than an hour and a half. I should have thought that it was not impossible so to organise our proceedings that we can debate a draft draft, or a proposed draft, or a consultative document so that at least the Government have the opportunity to hear the views of hon. Members on the proposals before they are finalised and we overcome the difficulty of the draft order having to be accepted in toto or rejected. I hope very much that this point will be taken very seriously and that a proposal will be made to meet these comments.
Nationality is a very sensitive issue. I hope that the Government will be able to meet UMELCO's request that it should be given priority and the matter settled fairly quickly, and that after due consideration the nomenclature can be finalised. It is also important to clarify the status of the non-ethnic Chinese in order to avoid statelessness.
If I mention the Vietnamese refugees, as has been done by several hon. Members, my hon. Friend may say that they are not relevant in this context. However, the fact is that at present there are 12,000 Vietnamese refugees in Hong Kong. Many of them will still be in Hong Kong in 1997 if the international community does nothing about them. Hong Kong has had a quite remarkable record. Well over 100,000 have been accepted into Hong Kong since 1975. Not one has been turned away. Many of them have been resettled elsewhere, some very successfully, but the movement from Hong Kong has now been reduced to a trickle. Of those 12,000 Vietnamese refugees, it is estimated that perhaps 260 will leave the territory this month. Refugees are still arriving, and those who are already there are producing children.
I have to confess to a personal interest. I have a son who is doing voluntary work in Hong Kong in what is described as a transit camp. For many of those staying there it is a transit to nowhere. My son will be coming home in the summer, having finished his period of service. He will be leaving in Hong Kong young men whom he has befriended, some of whom do not know the whereabouts of their families or, indeed, whether they have families. They face an uncertain future.
When we debated the Ethiopian famine a few weeks ago, a number of hon. Members suggested that it was the kind of issue about which we should all get worked up and then forget. I fear that there is the danger of this happening to the Vietnamese refugees, who hit the headlines a few years ago, but who have now been forgotten. At least we are in danger of forgetting them. Quite apart from the personal tragedies that this would involve, Hong Kong has willingly shouldered, but could well do without, this problem. Extra effort is needed by the Asian as well as by the European and North American powers to find a solution.
Clause 3 refers to adaptation of the law. My right hon. and learned Friend mentioned one or two of the issues that this might cover. What others are there? To what extent will orders be needed to deal with the judicial system, public service, finance and ownership of property, in addition to trade policy, shipping and aviation, which my right hon. and learned Friend implied would be covered? Will education involve orders? Will orders be made to cover the many freedoms that are detailed in the agreement? If such orders are to be made, surely they would merit the affirmative procedure. They would provide an opportunity for the House to consider them and we should not have to wait, presumably for an Opposition prayer because Government Back-Bench prayers are rarely considered, to provide the possibility of these matters being debated.
There has been pressure on the Government in the course of this debate to ensure that there are regular debates on Hong Kong. My right hon. and learned Friend showed a certain lack of enthusiasm for an annual debate, but it would be advantageous to have a debate from time to time on orders to discuss various matters.
The most important change between now and 1997 will be the move towards representative Government. Up to now Hong Kong has been a benevolent autocracy, which has worked extremely well. Until recently there has been little incentive for change in the system. One reason has been the fear that any change might be misinterpreted by Beijing. Another was that there appeared to be little pressure for a change in the system from the inhabitants of Hong Kong. Now the position has changed considerably. China wants Hong Kong to administer the special administrative region, and the Hong Kong people want to be involved.
We should not underestimate what a big step this will be for them. They will be going into uncharted territory. A few weeks ago I had the pleasure of talking to a group of Hong Kong graduates and telling them about the work of a Member of Parliament. All hon. Members frequently talk to children from schools in their constituency. However, it was only after I had been with the group for a few minutes that I realised that it had none of the background of the students to whom we normally talk. I had to start from the beginning as to what a Member of Parliament is, how he becomes one, and what work is involved. It was a completely new concept for the group. One of them even asked me why it was that we had the particular system that we have, and whether it would not be easier to have a system of organisations nominating Members of Parliament. That is extraordinary for us, but it is the sort of scheme that we are suggesting for them, and it seemed quite natural to them. I say this to show the size of the problem that confronts the people of Hong Kong in moving towards a system of representative government.
It is encouraging to learn about the way in which candidates are coming forward for the district board elections, but the path towards democracy—in the sense of representative government—will not be easy. This does not necessarily mean one man, one vote, or direct elections, straight away, and not necessarily—one hopes perhaps not—a party system. In the statement that many of us saw in November, the UMELCO members said:
Hong Kong must, therefore, devise its own unique style of representative government.".
That will not be easy for Hong Kong.
Later on, talking about this Government, UMELCO says:
The main task for Her Majesty's Government in the next twelve years is to ensure a smooth transition, so that 1997 does not represent an abrupt break with the past, but the continuation of a gradual process of evolution.
In that gradual process, the people of Hong Kong will need a great deal of help and guidance. We can assure them that they will get it. It is clear that they have confidence in the future, despite the uncertainty. Their reaction to the agreement, the continued growth in the economy, the reaction of the stock market and the way in which they are taking up the challenge of working towards representative government have made that plain.
The people of Hong Kong have many friends in Parliament, and the Hong Kong group is one of the largest. We have confidence in them, and we shall support them and help them through to 1997 and beyond.

Mr. Ian Wrigglesworth: The hon. Member for Chislehurst (Mr. Sims) has made a number of interesting points which I would like to comment on.
However, as I was unable to be here for the debate before Christmas because I was away on other duties, I begin by saying how much I welcome the agreement that has been reached with the People's Republic of China, and how much I congratulate the Government in Beijing, the Government here and the people in Hong Kong on the way in which this agreement has been brought about. The Government in Beijing deserve to be congratulated. They have moved a tremendous distance in accepting the contents of this agreement. I find it reassuring for the future of Hong Kong that they have been prepared to accept such a far-reaching agreement.
After a faltering start, our Government retrieved the situation, as has already been said. They have handled the matter well through to the signing of the agreement, which people in this country have been pleased to see and on which they wish to congratulate the Government. The people of Hong Kong, who are affected most by this agreement, deserve to be congratulated too on their fortitude and good sense in enduring the debate about their future without being able to have a direct impact upon it. They could have made life much more difficult, and one would not have been surprised if they had. They made their views known fairly vociferously and clearly to the House and to others, and that was a pleasing feature of the period during which the agreement was being discussed. The way in which the people and the representatives of Hong Kong conducted themselves helped to conclude the agreement satisfactorily, and on that the people of Hong Kong deserve to be congratulated.
Despite some of the reservations that have been made, I am pleased that the Government have introduced the Bill as quickly as they have. It probably would be preferable to have another week in addition to the one proposed before the Committee stage. This would give a break of two weeks before we went in to Committee and Report, and would provide an opportunity for people from Hong Kong to get through to us their views and feelings, particularly on some of the announcements made by the Foreign Secretary today. Not the least of those is the

nomenclature of the new nationality. To provide us with, effectively, only five or six days to receive comments from the people of Hong Kong is too short a time.
Nevertheless, it will be for the good of Hong Kong if this Bill has a fairly speedy passage through the House, and that any uncertainty is kept to a minimum. Uncertainty is the enemy of confidence and the sooner that any uncertainty can be cleared up, within the constraints of ensuring that there is full debate with the opportunity for hon. Members to put forward their views, the better for Hong Kong.
When the Bill has passed through the House we shall have a long period of uncertainty and great sensitivity during which confidence could be shattered easily. The House, the Government and the Government of Beijing must realise that it will be a sensitive time. In some ways the position will become even more difficult as 30 June 1997 approaches and people's doubts and fears, which undoubtedly exist beneath the surface, become more and more apparent. I hope that the confidence that has returned to Hong Kong will not be disturbed during that period. I hope that our Government will do all that they can to ensure that that does not happen.
It is obvious that the Joint Liaison Group will play a major part in ensuring that confidence is retained. If differences appear and problems arise, it is to be hoped that the group will ensure that co-operation and coordination overcome the difficulties. It would be helpful if the Minister were to give us in his reply more details of who will be members of the group and how the group will operate. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will be able to explain matters more clearly so that we are given a greater understanding. The more that is known about the operations of the group, the more confidence there will be in its ability to overcome problems between the passage of the Bill and 1997.
We have already seen the introduction of more democracy in the territory, and I welcome that. Indeed, I was pressing for it before it began to be introduced some years ago. I welcomed it when it first appeared tentatively under a previous Green Paper and White Paper. I should have liked to see a wider extension and I hope that that will take place in due course.
I am all in favour of there being a cautious approach so that continuity can be obtained, but I should like to see a phasing out of the appointed members in the fullness of time. I do not see why they cannot be replaced by elected members in due course. A universal franchise is the proper way in which to proceed and I rather regret the introduction of the slightly curious idea of functional constituencies, which will possibly introduce factionalism, the representation of vested interests, the representation of elites and a dual franchise, with some having two votes for representatives in the Legislative Council. A universal franchise would have been much better. We shall have an opportunity to see how the proposed system will work over the next few years and I hope that it will lead to the end of appointed members and of the system of functional constituencies.
Great interest has been shown in the elections which have already taken place and in the nominations for the 237 seats which I understand are coming up for election. I believe that there are 200 candidates and not 300, as some hon. Members have suggested. I understand also that 200 nominations were received within one week of their being invited. That is one of the signs that there is


tremendous interest in the elections. About 1·4 million have registered for voting, which is about 50 per cent. of those eligible to do so. When I was seeking the introduction of limited elections for district boards some years ago, I was told that there was no interest in democracy and that the public would not participate if they had it. The events of the past few years and the figures that I have mentioned show that there is genuine interest in the democratic process.
The hon. Member for Christchurch (Mr. Adley) rightly mentioned the aspirations of young people in Hong Kong. A high percentage of the population of Hong Kong are young people. They have been brought up to a great extent within a western culture and their aspirations are similar to those of young western people. The system of education, the television programmes and many other aspects of life in Hong Kong are similar to those that are to be found in a western society. I think that the hon. Gentleman was right to say that the aspirations of the young people of Hong Kong will need to be satisfied and that that could give rise to some problems. That is why I think that a further extension of democracy beyond that which has already taken place would be a good thing. It would help to ensure that the aspirations of the young were achieved.
The more effective the representative Government of Hong Kong are over the forthcoming period, the more likely they are to have an influence on the important basic law that will be introduced. If we have an effective and authoritative system of government in Hong Kong which clearly is representative of the people and has the confidence of the people, we can expect Beijing to take greater note of what it says than if it did not measure up to that standard.
I am sure that UMELCO representatives and others in Hong Kong will be pleased by the announcement this afternoon of the nomenclature for the new status and the assurance that the Orders in Council are expected to go through in the next 12 months. I know that UMELCO members were anxious to have those announcements. However, I take the view of the right hon. Member for South Down (Mr. Powell) and others that this is not a satisfactory procedure. Indeed, it is profoundly unsatisfactory. The system introducing the category of citizenship is unprecedented. It is unsatisfactory that we shall not have a full opportunity to debate the details and implications of the new nationality in the primary legislation. Instead, that is being left to the unsatisfactory procedure of Orders in Council, which will be virtually unamendable. This procedure will introduce uncertainty. It is open to amendment by further Orders in Council, and in that event there will not be a good opportunity for debate and amendment in this place.
I do not know whether it is too late for the Government to reconsider this approach. I hope that the opinions that have been aired from both sides of the House about the proposed procedure will lead the Government to introduce Orders in Council that have very green edges and provide an opportunity for full debate and the introduction of amendments to take account of the arguments that are advanced.
The position of the non-Chinese—the BDTCs—after 30 June 1997 is one that a number of hon. Members have mentioned. I hope that the Minister will spell out the Government's intentions when he replies. I believe that no one in this place wants to see BDTCs become stateless

after 1977. I hope that the Government will spell out in more detail exactly what are their intentions under the Bill for those who may become stateless after 1997.
It has been suggested—rightly, in my opinion—that it would be helpful if the new passport and the new status could be given as an option to those who want it before 1997 so that it could run in parallel with the existing passport. That would provide an opportunity for immigration services in various countries to become familiar with it. It would ensure that there were no problems, because if there were any difficulties the other passport would still be available to make sure that entry was obtained. It would also highlight any problems prior to 1997. It would provide an opportunity for the Government to make representations to other Governments where difficulties were experienced. Thus, I hope that the Minister will give the assurance that there is a possibility of those new documents being issued to people before 1997, and that the two can run together.
I entirely agree with the hon. Member for Chislehurst about the Vietnamese refugees. If matters carry on as they have done for the past couple of years, many of those 12,000 people will still be there in 1997. I have visited the camps and know that they are pretty spartan, unpleasant places in which to spend any time. They are probably as good as they can be, but I should like to see them wound up as quickly as possible. A major effort is needed by the Government to make approaches to international organisations and new approaches to other Governments in order to try to disperse those refugees who are still living in intolerable conditions in Hong Kong, and who are putting an enormous burden on the Hong Kong people and Government. That is quite unfair and I hope that our Government will take up the issue much more vigorously and vociferously than they have done so far, and that they will put pressure on other Governments to do something about it.
I wish the Bill well, and hope that it will have a speedy passage through the House. However, I hope that we shall also have time to raise issues that people from Hong Kong as well as others raise with us. Finally, I hope that the Bill will lead—as I am sure that it will—to an orderly change-over in 1997, and to the maintenance of Hong Kong's prosperity and freedoms which it has enjoyed for so long under British rule.

Mr. Ivan Lawrence: I hope that the delightful people of Hong Kong, whom many of us have met both here and in the colony, will be heartened by this debate, in which we have again shown just how much we care about the future of Hong Kong and how anxious we are to have a solution that is welcomed by them. In addition, the House has shown a bipartisan, or multipartisan, approach which is unusual for it, and which is reserved for important constitutional and moral matters. Thus I hope that the message that goes out today is one of continuing concern.
From our visits to Hong Kong in recent months we can say that the people of Hong Kong are obviously realists. They have reacted very well to the joint declaration, and the results have been most welcome. In addition, it is quite clear that the Government in Peking are realistic. I cannot pretend but to be heartened by the response of the Chinese Government to the requirements of a settlement in Hong Kong. I was one of those who believed that the proper way


of playing this was to play it long, because I did not believe that we could rely on undertakings given by a Government who would not necessarily still be in power in 1997. I think that I was wrong, and I recant—

Sir John Page: Does my hon. and learned Friend consider that there may not be a Conservative Government in power in 1997?

Mr. Lawrence: Of course a Conservative Government will be in power in this country in 1997. I have no doubt about that, and I have seen nothing in the past few weeks of parliamentary business to lead me to suppose otherwise. However, I was referring to the Government in Peking. I was about to say something that I do not normally say—that I was wrong, that I am pleased to recant and that it would be churlish of me to see the apparent good will of the Chinese Government in their dealings with Britain over the future of Hong Kong as anything other than a desire to bring about a satisfactory conclusion for all of us.
I shall comment on three matters that were raised by my right hon. and learned Friend the Foreign Secretary. They have already been much commented on, so I shall be brief. I deal first with the new nationality description. It does not seem to matter much what the description is, as long as we remember that it is important that the status should confer comparable rights and entitlements to those enjoyed at present. It is that end that we must keep in view. I am sure that my right hon. and learned Friend's suggestion as to the nomenclature will be acceptable to all parties.
For a Foreign Office Minister, my right hon. and learned Friend the Foreign Secretary was characteristically wholly defensive about the second matter, the treatment of Orders in Council when they come to be debated. I hope he will note that there is all-party concern that there should be a proper opportunity to reflect any strong feelings about these orders. It is less important how those feelings are considered than that the Minister should take into account the strength of concern on the point that such matters should be properly and fully debated. We should ensure that technicalities are not used as an excuse to cut short any consideration of those sensitive and important matters.
Therefore, I welcome the fact that statelessness is referred to in the Bill. However, the reference is unsatisfactory, in that it whets the appetite and implies that something is about to be said about the stateless when in reality nothing much is said. However, it shows our continuing concern and commitment to do something to abolish that statelessness, and that is to be welcomed.
In the context of mere references only I should have welcomed some mention of the future of Crown servants. Given the sensitivities involved, I realise that that might have been a little difficult. However, perhaps I can use this opportunity to say that Hong Kong's Crown servants have not been forgotten even though there has, to my knowledge, been no mention of them tonight. We consider it extremely important that any servants of the Crown should be treated properly, to their satisfaction, and given every opportunity of returning to this country if they find it impossible to stay in Hong Kong. Let us hope that it will not prove impossible for them to stay, but they should at least have that reassurance. Indeed, I should have liked some mention of that reassurance in the Bill, although I understand why it is not there.
One matter has caused me great concern since my visit in August to Hong Kong. I have listened to most of today's speeches, but I have heard little reference to the issue that I have in mind, and that only causes me greater concern. I refer to the question of the fundamental freedoms. Have we done, and are we doing, enough to reassure the people of Hong Kong that they will continue? I have no doubt that prosperity is likely to remain with the colony. I shall not repeat the various views and experiences mentioned by hon. Members on that point. However, that prosperity is unlikely to survive any loss of the people's fundamental freedoms—and therein lies my worry.
If the rich entrepreneurs and professionals become frightened, they will leave. If the millions who have already fled once from China take fright again and try to leave Hong Kong or to disrupt it, there will be trouble. In the violence and chaos, the economy will collapse. How can the Hong Kong Chinese be sure that China will not interfere with such fundamental freedoms as the right to free speech, the right to a free press, to freedom of travel, the freedom of investment, the right to have free trade unions, the right to have free access to independent courts and the right to have some degree of true democracy?
This is why we are so concerned. One has only to ask where in the Communist world in general or in China in particular those freedoms exist at present to understand that that is a realistic fear.
One serious problem that has not been raised or discussed today is that the Chinese probably do not, with the best will in the world, mean the same as we do by several terms that are used to describe fundamental freedoms. I doubt very much whether the Chinese understand by "democracy" what we mean by "democracy". I doubt very much whether they understand by the "rule of law" what we mean by the "rule of law". I doubt very much whether they understand by "free trade unions" what we mean by "free trade unions". One can go down the list of descriptions of fundamental freedoms. The difficulty is that when it comes to deciding what meaning is to be applied to words that may form a part in the basic law, it may be found that the fundamental freedom that we thought we were enshrining is not the fundamental freedom that the Chinese believed they were enshrining, and there will be nothing that we can do about it. That is the point.
Direct elections do not seem to command the burning support of the Hong Kong people, and without that burning zeal no Government on earth are likely to surrender substantial control over the will of the masses. Fear of ambitious rabble rousers and polarisation between the well organised Communist trade unions on the one hand and the equally well organised Kuomintang on the other is considerable among the ordinary people whom I met and talked with while I was in Hong Kong. I was told repeatedly that partial democracy with partly elected district boards, urban council and regional council electing part of the Legislative Council was "the Chinese way". Accordingly, the Peking Government will be able to appoint their own representatives to the Legislative and Executive Councils, and Communist control will be greatly facilitated. As there are unlikely to be any direct elections, that restraint upon tyranny will simply not exist.
Therefore, will China be able to resist interfering with the people of Hong Kong after 1997? Will the Chinese consider it sufficient of a triumph to be able to proclaim that Communism can live side by side by with capitalism


to maintain economic prosperity—the "one country, two systems" that we have heard so much about? I believe that it is almost inevitable that they will seek the greater triumph of trying to prove to a disbelieving world that Hong Kong can remain prosperous under a social and legal, though not necessarily economic, Communist system. Why should they not want to do so? They will want to persuade the rest of the world that Communism works; that, with its necessary economic variation, it works.

Mr. Johnston: Taiwan.

Mr. Lawrence: Taiwan is an excellent reason why the Chinese should be willing—in fact enthusiastic—to try to show that Communism will be effective in Taiwan as it is in Hong Kong.
I also fear that if sufficient people in Hong Kong feel threatened with the loss of their freedom, as everywhere else in the Communist world, they may seek to leave Hong Kong in sufficient numbers and with sufficient of their investments and technological know-how to destroy its prosperity and leave China a hollow shell.
It is certain that the Chinese will therefore have to try a little harder, perhaps a lot harder, to reassure the people of Hong Kong and international investors. There is little alternative to a commitment to a written bill of rights, and the fundamental freedoms will have to be enshrined in a constitutional document that defines the basic law. That basic law will have to be clear, detailed and as near as possible free from doubt. That may be what is intended by the negotiators. However, more than that there will need to be a proper system of guaranteeing those fundamental rights, because the Soviet Union has given us ample proof of how worthless constitutions can be without the machinery of guarantee.
Therefore, there will need to be some sort of constitutional supreme court, not just a supreme court that is the ultimate court of appeal, but a constitutional court similar to the Supreme Court in the United States. That is very different from anything in the British system, because we do not have a written constitution. Such a court, made up of judges from Hong Kong and consistent with Chinese sovereignty, would have two important tasks. One would be to resolve disputes about the meaning of the elements of the basic law, so that the differences that may exist between what we mean by phrases and what the Chinese mean by phrases were properly adjudicated upon. Secondly, it would be a function of the court to ensure that any Chinese laws, ordinances or regulations emanating from Peking would not conflict with the fundamental freedoms laid down in the basic law and written constitution.
The right hon. and learned Member for Aberavon (Mr. Morris) came close to mentioning the issue of guaranteeing fundamental freedoms, but no one else has. I consider it to be terribly important. Perhaps the negotiators are negotiating about it. Perhaps we have no reason to have such fears or doubts. Perhaps the Government in China already have a plan for making sure that those fundamental freedoms are properly enshrined and defined and will be guaranteed, but, just in case they do not, the attention of the House should be directed to the importance of the issue.
I should have liked such provisions to be incorporated into a schedule to the Bill to inspire the necessary

confidence, so that all the world might see that we are not just casting away the fundamental liberties and human rights of 5 million or 6 million people who were formerly our responsibility. It might have been possible for the Government of China to agree to such an enshrinement so that they could be seen to be committing themselves with their good faith and intentions, on fundamental rights.
Of course, there can be no ultimate guarantee that the spirit, still less the actual Government of Deng Xiaoping, will survive the likely cycles of political power in China over the next 13 years, so trust and good will are of the essence. I am sure that the 40 or so British Members of Parliament who recently visited Hong Kong will confirm that the people of the colony are more worried about their freedom than about their economic future, but the two are directly linked. I am sorry that so far little has been said about the preservation of those fundamental freedoms. I hope that the Government will give an undertaking that in the negotiations that are still going on they will endeavour to get the Chinese Government to commit themselves to providing the necessary procedural guarantees.
Hong Kong's prosperity rests, in the last resort; on confidence alone. If there are no sufficient guarantees that freedom, in its various forms, will remain, that confidence will not endure past any Hong Kong spring. China will be left with that hollow shell, and its hope of technological and economic achievement in the 21st century will be dashed.

Mr. Richard Needham: I should like to confine my remarks to that part of the Bill, especially paragraph 2 of the schedule, which deals with the issue of nationality and to concentrate on the views expressed by the right hon. Member for South Down (Mr. Powell) and other hon. Members with similar views. In the Hong Kong debate on 5 December 1984, the right hon. Member for South Down said:
But it is one thing for the Government to say that the new status will not give these people the right of abode in the United Kingdom. It is another to ignore the increasing pressure that will be brought to bear on the United Kingdom if we confer the kind of status adumbrated in this document, to admit its holders liberally and freely to the United Kingdom from Hong Kong in coming years, both before and after 1997.
He went on:
By what is proposed here we are incurring a virtually unlimited, though unacknowledged, liability to cede to pressure, a liability which could be of great consequence for our own future." — [Official Report, 5 December 1984; Vol. 69, c. 407.]
The right hon. Gentleman has elaborated on that position today. As I understand it, it means that he and other hon. Members, including my hon. Friend the Member for Orpington (Mr. Stanbrook), are afraid that between 1997 and probably, or possibly, thereafter a large number of Hong Kong people will wish to establish a right of abode in the United Kingdom. Even if they do not wish to live here, a large number of them might want to come here. The British Government's proposals not only do not make it any less clear to the people of Hong Kong that they will not be entitled to come here, but are a move towards a liability to be pressured to allow those people to come here. I suggest that there are serious flaws in the views of those hon. Members in considering not only the people of Hong Kong but the United Kingdom.
It is argued that people will wish to come to live in Britain either because of changed economic circumstances


in Hong Kong or because of political pressures. I say to the right hon. Member for South Down that I am completely convinced that 99 per cent. of Hong Kong people have no more wish to live in this country than his constituents have to live in my constituency or my constituents have to live in his constituency. I assure the right hon. Gentleman that, even if the Hong Kong people had to leave Hong Kong, they would prefer to go to many other countries in the Pacific basin. Current emigration patterns show that the people would rather go to Canada, the United States, Australia or Singapore. If the right hon. Member for South Down or other Opposition Members do not think that that is the case, they should give us the evidence to support their argument. To suggest that somehow Britain has an open-ended liability is to display an arrogance about the intentions of the Hong Kong people that they rightly resent.
If the argument is that people will wish to live in Britain because of economic pressures — in the past, people have emigrated from Hong Kong because of economic problems—I point out that I do not think it is likely that the British economy will do any better than the Hong Kong economy. I do not, therefore, believe that there is much likelihood of Hong Kong people wanting to come to Britain for that reason.
The not totally expressed point behind the argument of the right hon. Member for South Down concerns what happens if the political settlement that is made during the next 15 or 20 years with the People's Republic of China comes unstuck. There is a possibility that that will happen, although, for the reasons advanced by many hon. Members, it is extremely unlikely. If the worse comes to the worst and a large number of Hong Kong people decide or are forced to flee Hong Kong, what will the right hon. Member for South Down do? Will he jump to his feet and say, "We shall not have any of these people over here. We passed legislation in 1973, in 1981 and in 1985 when I was responsible for the title, 'British National (Overseas)' and, because of that success, none of you Hong Kong people can come here"? Can one imagine circumstances in which hundreds of thousands of people are floating around in small boats in the middle of the south China sea waving passports with the words, "British National (Overseas) Passport" and, "British Passport" stamped on them? Can one imagine the right hon. Member for South Down and other people saying, "We have no responsibility for these people. Our responsibility is finished, regardless of the fact that we were responsible for looking after them for many years." I do not for one moment believe that we can abjure that responsibility because of our negotiations with China.
Does anyone believe that the British people would stand for those circumstances? Will the right hon. Member for South Down stand up in front of his constituents and say that not one Hong Kong person will be allowed into the United Kingdom? That position would probably be much worse than the one we saw recently on our television sets regarding Ethiopia. I do not for one moment think that the British Government or any other Western Government would decide not to undertake an international rescue operation — such as the one undertaken with the Vietnamese boat people — to help out. It would be totally unrealistic to suppose that the British Government would not play a leading part in that operation. I do not

believe one jot that that is ever likely to happen, but, even if it did, the fact is that the 1973, 1981 or 1985 legislation would not make the slightest difference to the action we would take in those circumstances.
The right hon. Member for South Down asked the hon. Member for Inverness, Nairn and Lochaber (Mr. Johnston) what his remedy was. I invite the right hon. Member for South Down to reply to the question the hon. Member for Stockton, South (Mr. Wrigglesworth) asked him: what is the right hon. Gentleman's remedy? I believe that I heard the right hon. Member for South Down say from a sedentary position that, if the people of Hong Kong were forced to flee, he would not want any of them to have a place here.

Mr. J. Enoch Powell: We should not have provided those people with the status or documents that implied that we had a special responsibility greater than that of any other nation on the face of the earth.

Mr. Needham: Of course we have a special responsibility, because of our history, and I am proud that we should live up to it.
The right hon. Gentleman's position and arguments present this country with some problems. The people of Hong Kong take the view that a country some of whose most important political leaders would clearly stop at nothing to keep them out in any circumstances is no great friend of theirs. It is understandable that they should take that view.
However, trade between the United Kingdom and Hong Kong is extremely important. In the most recent year for which we have figures, exports from the United Kingdom to Hong Kong were worth £667 million, and imports were worth £944 million. That is an export-import ratio of 71 per cent., which is only bettered by our ratio with the United States—with the strength of the dollar that is not surprising—and with France. Our trading position with Hong Kong is better than that with Italy—although, of course, the volume of trade is not so large—or with the Federal Republic of Germany, and bears no comparison whatever with trade with Japan.

Mr. Nicholas Budgen: All my hon. Friend's arguments would apply to an even greater extent to our former relations with the Indian subcontinent. Would my hon. Friend claim that, in so far as we made any mistake on the question of immigration from the sub-continent, it was that we should have been more liberal in our attitude towards immigration?

Mr. Needham: There is a considerable difference between granting independence to a nation that demands it and handing over 5 million people who have not been consulted—as my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Burton (Mr. Lawrence) and others have said—when there is no evidence to show that, given a choice, they would necessarily take this road.
It is not only the trade figures that are important. There is a direct impact on hon. Members' constituencies. Some of the commercial and industrial deals done with Hong Kong recently have been on a very large scale. For instance, there is the £2 billion project for the construction of Castle Peak power station. In my own constituency, the order for the mass transit railway for Hong Kong has created many jobs.
Furthermore, we all hope and believe that China will be opened up further. Hong Kong will be the front door


in that process, and the influence of the people of Hong Kong in placing contracts, tendering and in general easing commercial relations with China for British business men will be enormous. That process will not be assisted by the attitude of the right hon. Member for South Down.
Two specific examples may illustrate the reason why the British are not privately as well thought of in Hong Kong as they might be. I am glad to see that my hon. and learned Friend the Minister of State, Home Office is here. I have a Hong Kong business friend who happens to be a British citizen, as does his wife. He has a son who was born in Hong Kong and is, therefore a BDTC. No doubt he will soon become a BMO—which I hope will not be changed to "Beano". What will happen to that family? There is a second son who was born in the United Kingdom. He is also a British citizen. If anything happened, three members of the family would be entitled to come to the United Kingdom, and the fourth would not.
My hon. and learned Friend will say that the Home Secretary has discretion in such cases. However, in 12 years' time the boy will have grown up. Can we be certain that the Home Secretary would use his discretion if the boy were no longer living at home? Such are the arguments that understandably consume conversation among those in Hong Kong who are not completely certain about their future.
My second example is close to home for the right hon. Member for South Down. One of the largest manufacturers of watches in Hong Kong wanted to set up a factory in Europe. He considered setting it up in the United Kingdom. No doubt he could have been persuaded to set it up in Northern Ireland. However, he found that the rules and regulations surrounding coming to the United Kingdom, the bureaucratic way in which they were enforced and the amount of money that he had to show were such that it was incomparably easier for him to set up in the Republic of Ireland. A factory making watches and providing 60 jobs is now sitting outside Dublin, selling watches throughout Northern Ireland and the United Kingdom, when it could equally well have been set up in the right hon. Gentleman's constituency or in mine.

Mr. Budgen: Will my hon. Friend give way?

Mr. Needham: No. My hon. Friend has not listened to the debate. He has already intervened once. I am delighted that he is here and is making such a useful contribution.
I had intended to call in aid the arguments of the right hon. Member for Leeds, East (Mr. Healey). However, now that I have heard the right hon. Gentleman say that he is in favour of shooting both tigers and elephants, I am not sure that I should do so. Having also heard him refer to President Reagan as Senator Reagan on the very day of his second inauguration, I could only say to the right hon. Gentleman — were he here — that if he had been in charge of the negotiations he would have given a completely new meaning to the phrase, "a bull in a china shop".
In the debate on 5 December the right hon. Gentleman said:
However, many of those people have skills and energies that could contribute greatly to Britain's economy and social progress … We should not be indifferent to the contribution that Chinese people from Hong Kong can make, although we cannot issue any blank cheque to accept as many of them as might wish to come here at any one time.
Later on the right hon. Gentleman said that

we should be prepared to accept them, on a case by case basis, as the Americans have accepted hundreds of thousands of Asians from other western Pacific countries since the war."—[Official Report, 5 December 1984; Vol. 69, c. 401–4.]
We cannot compare ourselves with the United States, but we should do what we can to accept people who will come to this country, invest here and bring jobs. Why does a Hong Kong resident have to find £150,000 to come here, whereas in the case of the United States the amount is only £40,000? I am not sure. Furthermore, the cavilling by the right hon. Gentleman and others — the implied assumption that large numbers of people will want to come here — is degrading to the people of Hong Kong and also gives other countries the impression that they, too, may suffer a massive influx unless they take similar action.
The hon. Member for Inverness, Nairn and Lochaber mentioned a friend of his who tried to go to Mexico but suddenly found that a visa was required. There are many other stories of people living in Hong Kong who are obliged to get visas to visit countries which have never required them before. One can understand the frustration of members of a nation based upon trade and commerce, who want to move around the world, when the behaviour of certain sections of British society denies them the ability to do so.
For practical, commercial, political and moral reasons we should support what the Government are trying to do. I accept that the legislation is not legally or jurisprudentially—if there is such a word—as neat and tidy as it might be. However, it is overwhelmingly right that we should do what we can for the people of Hong Kong. I welcome the fact that they will be called British nationals.

Mr. Ivor Stanbrook: I apologise for my absence during the earlier part of the speech by my right hon. and learned Friend the Foreign Secretary.
I support the main principle behind the Bill, but I strongly object to the way in which the Government propose to introduce alterations to our nationality law. My hon. Friend the Member for Wiltshire, North (Mr. Needham) devoted most of his speech to an argument in favour of a more liberal immigration policy. The Bill contains many more problems than are to be found in immigration policy alone. One of those problems is the way in which the Government are proposing to amend an important body of law which we eventually managed to codify after much delay, thought and consideration quite recently. Britain had no proper system of nationality law until 1948. It was previously supposed that everyone who was born in the United Kingdom or its territories was a British subject. Only when certain of our colonies achieved independence, whereupon they had dominion status, did it seem necessary to distinguish their nationality from ours. We evolved the notion that each Commonwealth country, on attaining independence, had its own citizenship. We all had British subject status, but for the United Kingdom and colonies there was citizenship of the United Kingdom and colonies. That appeared to cover the problem satisfactorily, apart from the fact that nearly 1 billion people around the world were entitled to the status of British subject until 1981, when we finally resolved the problem and said that only people with a connection with the United Kingdom were entitled to British citizenship.
The word "British" is significant and will remain of great practical significance in all developments resulting from this Bill. In the British Nationality Act 1981, we worked out three categories of British citizenship. First was British citizenship, which applied to people with connections with the United Kingdom, second was British dependent territory citizenship, which applied to inhabitants of British colonies, and third was British overseas citizenship, which was reserved for people who still had a right to call themselves British, derived from the fact that they were previously inhabitants of a British colony that had attained independence.
When we passed the 1981 Act, we thought that we had resolved the problem and that the relics of empire, as the right hon. Member for South Down (Mr. Powell) called them in Standing Committee, would gradually be phased out. That included the status of British overseas citizenship. In their approach to finding a solution to the problem of what to do with the millions of people in Hong Kong now that Hong Kong is to lose its status as a colony, the Government seem completely to have ignored the scheme of the British Nationality Act 1981. Instead of introducing a Bill to amend that Act, they have adopted this device of subordinate legislation in a Bill which is not concerned primarily with nationality to amend nationality law.
My hon. Friend the Member for Newport, West (Mr. Robinson) said that Hong Kong is a special case, but special cases do not necessarily justify breaking our known constitutional rules and conventions. Why is it necessary for nationality law to be amended by an Order in Council which is provided by a Bill concerning Hong Kong? I have heard no explanation for the device. It will result in a shortened debate and means that the Government can say, "Take it or leave it—you cannot amend it." I believe that hon. Members on both sides of the House might regret their mute attitude on this issue. Why on earth have the Government resorted to this constitutional device to avoid a Bill having to be presented to the House and amended according to normal constitutional procedures?
A clause which allows for subordinate legislation to amend an Act is known to academic writers as a Henry VIII clause because he used the device often to legislate without having to ask the House of Commons. If the Government regard this as a proper precedent for changing our law, we might be in great trouble sooner than we think. What applies to nationality law could apply to those parts of our law which concern the liberty of the individual and the freedom of citizens.
Opposition Members seem to think that it is enough to say, "Oh, but we can have more than our normal one and a half hours to debate the Order in Council, or perhaps we can have a draft Order in Council so that it can be considered." That is no excuse for allowing an Order in Council to amend substantive legislation. The Government should be required to take out the schedule and other parts of the Bill which refer to nationality and to amend the British Nationality Act 1981 properly through an amending Bill.
One of the correct things that the right hon. Member for Leeds, East (Mr. Healey) said is that there is no precedent for creating a new category of citizenship, least of all by Order in Council. In the British Nationality Act 1948, we gave separate citizenship to British subjects around the

world according to where they lived. The device has been used not to introduce a new status of citizenship, which would be logical and in accordance with the plan of the 1981 Act, but to introduce something completely different—British National (Overseas). What on earth is that? The very word "British" tells 3 million people in Hong Kong that after they cease to live in a British colony they will nevertheless be British. Could anything be more absurd than their being British after they become Chinese nationals, even in our eyes? Moreover, they will have the benefit of British passports. They will be able to travel around the world as British Nationals (Overseas). They will not travel as British citizens or as Commonwealth citizens or as any of the categories that we provided in the 1981 Act. That is logically indefensible. This has nothing to do with immigration, although my hon. Friend the Member for Wiltshire, North has lambasted me and the right hon. Member for South Down on the subject of immigration.
Whatever the subject we must not make bad law. The legislation that the House makes must be as good as we can make it. It must be obvious that this little bit is bad, especially by making it in this way. How on earth will we avoid the problems that will arise from there being more than 3 million people calling themselves British who, according to us, are entitled to call themselves British, who carry passports saying that they are British yet who are not entitled to live in this country? That is a serious matter. If, as many of my hon. Friends and Opposition Members believe, the European Convention on Human Rights should be incorporated into our law, that means the fourth protocol, which states that a man has a right to live in the country of his nationality. That means British nationality for those 3 million or more people.

Mr. Johnston: The hon. Gentleman is shifting his ground. He stands on solid ground when he says that one should not make changes in nationality by Order in Council, but he is now saying that the whole concept of British National (Overseas) is absurd and that it will cause all kinds of difficulties. What kinds of difficulties?

Mr. Stanbrook: If the hon. Gentleman will allow me, I shall illustrate that point.

Sir John Page: I hope that my hon. Friend does not go on for too long.

Mr. Stanbrook: As my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow, West (Sir J. Page) is a great friend of mine, I shall respect what he says.
Under the British Nationality Act 1981 there were three categories of citizenship. The third envisaged the sort of situation which now arises for the people of Hong Kong— the category of British overseas citizens. Generally speaking, those people live in the far east. There are more than 1 million in Malaysia and Singapore. They are not entitled to the right of abode in the United Kingdom, but they have the right to British passports. They may not have the right of abode in the countries in which they live, but their children, having been born in those countries, will be entitled to local citizenship. In many cases, these people have not been given their own local citizenship. However, that is the residuary category provided by our existing nationality law.
Why have the Government not adopted that category for the people of Hong Kong? Why have they gone in for


a completely different category with a different title, which is more likely to mislead rather than clarify? Such people in Hong Kong will have two passports, one from the People's Republic of China declaring them to be Chinese nationals and no doubt requesting such assistance as might be afforded to them, and the other a British passport. They will be declared to be British Nationals (Overseas) and no doubt the Foreign Secretary will command and request that all such help should be given to the holders of such passports. That must give rise to problems around the world. No wonder so many hon. Members, including the hon. Member for Inverness, Nairn and Lochaber (Mr. Johnston), wanted somehow to bring in this new citizenship so that the passports would be recognised.
However, all those people have the right to passports now as British dependent territories citizens. It is of no assistance to the people concerned to ask them to carry the new document declaring them to be British Nationals (Overseas). If they do so, they will not have the protection of the Chinese before 1997, although they will thereafter. Far better, therefore, that the change should come then.
Why should we, in relation to Chinese nationals, be so concerned that countries outside China should recognise our passport as if those people were genuinely regarded as British citizens? That is a snare and a delusion. It is unfair and dishonest. It is extremely unkind on the people concerned. That is my basic argument, and it has nothing to do with immigration.
The ethnic Chinese can, I believe, all be accommodated within the citizenship provisions to be made by China. But we understand that 6,000 people will not be Chinese nationals and will not be regarded as Chinese compatriots. Most of them are Indian citizens or Indians who will be eligible for Indian citizenship. There are hundreds of others who in some cases have derived their British nationality from naturalisation followed by the birth of their descendants in Hong Kong. Many of those people, if not most, have no other connection with the far east, save their physical presence in Hong Kong. Many are responsible for the great prosperity that Hong Kong now enjoys. They will be an asset to this country, and to that extent I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Wiltshire North. I for one would not deny them the status of British citizens if they apply for it. However, we must not muddy the waters when a problem such as this demands clarity. It is not right, fair or kind on the people concerned to treat them in this way.
In deference to my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow, West, my last point relates to the public service of Hong Kong. I have mentioned this before, but I must keep on mentioning it, if only to ensure that my right hon. and learned Friend the Foreign Secretary does not forget it. The Overseas Civil Service of Hong Kong deserves to be treated no less favourably—I declare an interest as a pensioner of the Overseas Civil Service of Nigeria — than civil servants in other colonies that have now received independence. The situation for those in Hong Kong is different in that the change of Government will not occur for 12 years. In Nigeria and elsewhere the change of Government came fairly soon after the constitutional conferences which anticipated independence. Nevertheless, members of the Overseas Civil Service in Hong Kong have a right to know that their interests will be safeguarded in respect of promotion, transfer and pensions. If they continue to serve in Hong Kong after

1997, they should be entitled to all the rights that they would have enjoyed had Hong Kong remained a British dependent territory.
I make that point because morale in the service in Hong Kong will suffer gradually as we reach 1997 unless my right hon. and learned Friend makes it clear that those terms will be available soon. If they are not given, there will be a wastage of the service in Hong Kong which will be in no one's interest.

Mr. James Couchman: I am pleased to catch your eye this evening, Mr. Deputy Speaker, because I am convinced that the brief Bill before us will turn out to be one of the most historic actions that this Government have taken.
Those hon. Members who were here during the 1950s, 1960s and even the 1970s will have taken part on a number of occasions in the process of decolonisation. For the class of 1983, that process will be severely curtailed because we have so few dependent territories left. It is that sense of history that prompts me to offer a few brief comments. I am persuaded, as is my hon. Friend the Member for Newport, West (Mr. Robinson), that this is indeed a most important debate.
I shall not go over the ground of nationality. My hon. Friends the Members for Orpington (Mr. Stanbrook) and for Wiltshire, North (Mr. Needham), together with other hon. Members, discussed the fine print of the nationality aspect of the Bill. I am especially interested in clause I, which gives currency to the termination of our sovereignty over Hong Kong and the resumption of sovereignty by China.
Unlike many right hon. and hon. Members who have been able to visit Hong Kong during recent months, I have not had the pleasure of seeing the position on the ground. My interest in Hong Kong has been stimulated since I entered the House by the generous quantity of reading material that has been sent to hon. Members, and also by family associations that go back 90 years. Without being too anecdotal, my great grandfather helped to build and then became the manager of Tai Koo docks, which position he held until he died of typhoid and meningitis in 1909. Like so many itinerant Scots engineers, he helped to create the facilities that have made Hong Kong into the considerable trading post it is today. It is extraordinary how Scotland has provided so many doctors and engineers around the world, and also a fair number of trade union activists.
Conditions in Hong Kong have not always been as healthy as they are today. I am glad to say that my grandfather, who was employed on the same project as my great grandfather, survived the outbreak of typhoid. Hong Kong was not always as prosperous as it is today. It is well to remember that the Japanese occupation from 1941 to 1945 reduced Hong Kong to ruins. In 1945 there was no food, no shipping, no industry and no commerce. The population had fallen from 1·6 million to a little over 750,000. The natural industry and energy of the people of Hong Kong soon restored economic health and vitality, only to suffer a second hammer blow with the Korean war of 1950 to 1953. Hong Kong almost died a second time.
By the mid-1950s, the people had clawed back to prosperity for the second time in a decade. It is the precedents of the second world war and the Korean war that have led to the entirely reasonable apprehension about


1997 and the end of the lease on the new territories. The lessons of the past have spawned the fears for the future. Therefore, it is to the immense credit of all those involved in the Sino-British negotiations during the past two years that a draft agreement of such breadth and imagination, of such reassurance and pragmatic good sense, should have been constructed. I hope and pray that the faith of those involved in drawing up the agreement is rewarded by the growing confidence of the people of Hong Kong as the details of the agreement take a more concrete form and as the Joint Liaison Group goes about its task.
Of course, it is possible to be sceptical about a number of the aspects of the joint declaration and its annexes. There is the commitment that there will be a high degree of autonomy under Chinese sovereignty, the commitment that the Socialist system and policies shall not be practised in Hong Kong for 50 years, the commitment to a system of law that is quite unlike the prevailing system in China, and the commitment that the Government of the People's Republic of China will not levy taxes on the Hong Kong special administrative region—something that we should look at carefully because the PRC Government will undoubtedly be supplying services and public utilities to Hong Kong, and prices for them could be manipulated.
There is the commitment to retain all those freedoms and rights that we take for granted — freedom of association, of the press, of speech, of the person, of belief, of academic research, of choice of occupation, to marry and the right to bring up a family. All those commitments, together with many others, bear close examination because they offer a regime that is in such stark contrast to the People's Republic of China.
There are those who scoff and say that the commitments are worthless and that the moment China has resumed sovereignty it can tear up the agreements and impose a totalitarian regime in line with the remainder of the People's Republic of China. My hon. Friend the Member for Southampton, Test (Mr. Hill) spoke along those lines. Indeed, there are those, such as the chairman of the so-called British anti-Communist council, who go a good deal further in their cynicism and scepticism. Those who have left China and have escaped the regime since 1949 have every reason to have reservations.
I prefer to believe that the framework for the Hong Kong special administrative region post-1997 represents an agreement that is pragmatic to Britain, to China and to the people of Hong Kong. I accept the Government's confidence that the agreement provides the necessary assurances about Hong Kong's future that will allow the territory to continue to flourish and to maintain its unique role in the world.
Hong Kong, operating within the framework of the joint declaration and its annexes, will continue and prosper as a vital and commercial trading bridge between Western capitalism and Chinese Communism. That bridge could —and here we move into the realms of speculation— help to draw the People's Republic of China away from the stultifying economics of Communism and back towards a more mixed economy. I am wholly persuaded that Communism is alien to the essentially entrepreneurial nature of the Chinese.
The recent dipping of toes into the capitalist waters of stocks and shares shows that the Chinese leaders have recognised the benefits of incentive and investment. Who

knows what developments might take place by 1997— Hong Kong could indeed be the key to a truly historic change of economic philosophy by the Chinese people. However, as I have said, we are now speculating and tonight's debate is intended to progress a Bill that will give substance to the draft agreement between Britain and China for the resumption of Chinese sovereignty over Hong Kong.
As we are well aware, the alternative to that agreement is a takeover in 1997 by the Chinese on terms determined by the Chinese alone. That alternative is most unlikely to be acceptable to the people of Hong Kong, and that was one of the most acid tests for the agreement. In those circumstances, what price the commitment that military forces sent by the People's Republic of China Government to be stationed in the Hong Kong special administrative region for the purpose of defence will not interfere in the internal affairs of the Hong Kong SAR?
That is enough from someone whose connections with Hong Kong are trapped in the past of the colony. The Bill offers the hope of a much brighter future for Hong Kong after 1997 than once seemed possible. The Bill demands confidence from us all, not cynicism.

Sir John Page: It is less difficult for me to compress a brilliant 20-minute speech into four minutes because everything that I intended to say has already been said at least four times, except about one aspect. I listened to the wise, dignified and clear speech by my right hon. and learned Friend the Foreign Secretary which was in striking contradistinction to the speech by the right hon. Member for Leeds, East (Mr. Healey) who rose like some political coelacanth, spewed out some sour foam and immediately disappeared to his lair beneath the troubled waves of the Labour party. I am grateful to him for his perspicacity in coming back just to listen to my speech. I appreciate it.
The Government were wise to have one Bill to include the joint agreement and the adaptation of British law- maritime law and so on. Will Hong Kong's future in EFT A after 1997 be affected by the Bill?
The creative news in the debate concerns the nomenclature British National (Overseas) for future Hong Kong passports. I was less worried by the criticisms by the right hon. Member for South Down (Mr. Powell) and by my hon. Friend the Member for Orpington (Mr. Stanbrook) than I was by the enthusiastic support from my hon. Friend the Member for Wiltshire, North (Mr. Needham) which gave some worries and doubts.
In these days of sophisticated knowledge of passports and nationality no one possessing the British National (Overseas) passport will be misled into thinking that it gives the right of abode in the United Kingdom. It is clear to the people of Hong Kong that the passport cannot be transmissible by descent.
The amazingly calm atmosphere of this evening's debate is proof of the general acceptability of the terms negotiated to the hard working, brilliant and realistic people of Hong Kong. I say that because many of us are deeply committed to the welfare of the Hong Kong people. We would have fought tooth and nail if we had believed that the agreement was not as good as possible for their protection.
It is a great compliment to the negotiators in the People's Republic of China and to our own dedicated team.
I take the view, which is shared by many well-informed people with knowledge of the far east, that the Prime Minister's forthright attitude in the early stages, in 1982, did much to prepare the ground for the final successful agreement. On the day that the agreement was signed I and other members of the British delegation to the Inter-Parliamentary Union were meeting their distinguished Chinese delegation in Geneva. I am certain that they were as genuinely excited and optimistic as we were about the future.
I believe that the agreement will stick. One of the great advantages was the early negotiation and signing of the agreement so that the people of Hong Kong and the people of China have 13 years to get used to their new relationship.

Mr. Peter Bruinvels: This is an historic debate and I am privileged to take part in it. The Bill reflects and summarises the termination of British sovereignty and jurisdiction over Hong Kong and I am filled with trepidation. We have had the long-term consultations in Hong Kong between the Chinese people and the British people, and tonight we are deciding on the future of 5¼ million people.
Of course I want the territory to continue to flourish. It has been successful. Its economy has been distinct and independent. I want its future to be secure and I believe that the Bill will help it to remain secure. It has a unique trading and financial status. I wish that we could produce goods here as cheaply and as well.
It is reassuring that the stock market is now recovering — slowly, but surely. All the people of Hong Kong deserve praise for that. However, like my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Burton (Mr. Lawrence), I want to see freedom for all the people of Hong Kong. This is an historic day. We must look to the future, to the risk of Communism and to how China could affect the initiative and peace which exist in Hong Kong now.
What of the future, and what of China? China appears to be growing more capitalist in spirit, which is helpful. However, I hope there will not be any bullying, rough assaults or attacks on the people of Hong Kong. Communism is a sick cancer, corrupting enterprise and crippling initiative. We must be careful how our relations stay with China.
We know that Hong Kong's future is secure for a further 50 years after 30 June 1997. I know that hon. Members will watch Hong Kong for years to come. I have yet to visit Hong Kong, but my colleagues who have done so tell me what is going on, and I read about it in the papers. We wish the people of Hong Kong success.
I am worried that many people in Hong Kong will wish to leave. As my hon. Friend the Member for Orpington (Mr. Stanbrook) said, we must watch the position carefully, because there might be a risk of a massive exodus from Hong Kong to Britain. Can we cope?
I want to see freedom of movement between the two countries, as there is now. We have policemen there who are serving in the Hong Kong police force, and civil servants serving in the Hong Kong Civil Service. I want

that to continue. Obviously there will be emigration. British people will wish to work there because the terms and conditions are encouraging.
The new designation of British National (Overseas) for British dependent territories citizens is strange. I am sure that the people of Hong Kong still feel British to the core. The two countries enjoy an excellent relationship, which we must continue to establish and retain. I believe that the Bill will assist in that direction. I wish to put on record our appreciation of what my right hon. and learned Friend the Foreign Secretary has achieved in bringing about the agreement.
I am worried about paragraph 2(1)(b) of the schedule which defines the status of nationality. I am glad that the Foreign Secretary has been able to clear up the title of the people who will be so named. It is a new form of nationality, and I wonder whether we have all thought through the long-term consequences of it. When the passport is issued — we have not yet been informed when that will be — I should prefer to say "and a resident of Hong Kong". We may hear more about that later.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Orpington said, we need to look at the future of our nationality law. Orders in Council are the normal way to change nationality status, and the people of Hong Kong would not wish it to be treated differently from anyone else. There is to be a new status, but it does not involve massive immigration into the United Kingdom. That must be right.
In the years to come we shall need, above all, to continue to liaise closely with the people of Hong Kong. We have a far better relationship with China now, and we know that Hong Kong and China are co-operating to a large extent.
I know that we shall have regular debates on Hong Kong. I want the people of Hong Kong to know that we do not forget them, that we continue to admire them and that we want such debates and reports so that hon. Members can remember and be up-dated. I wish the people of Hong Kong every success.

Mr. George Robertson: Today's debate, which follows only three parliamentary weeks after the previous substantial debate on Hong Kong, has covered several areas, some of which were raised previously and still remain open, and others which were related to the Bill. Next Monday we shall have the opportunity to discuss in some detail several aspects of the Bill. That is probably why, Mr. Speaker, you allowed some licence in the subjects that have been discussed today.
What underlies the sentiment of many speeches has been a growing concern about the remaining questions on Hong Kong, and the fact that trust will be a crucial factor in the development of Hong Kong's institutions and in the future of Hong Kong itself. The press coverage in Hong Kong of our previous debate suggests several misapprehensions about the way in which the House treats such affairs. I fear that the low attendance for today's debate might give rise to similar misapprehensions.
As you know, Mr. Speaker, some domestic issues of enormous moment can pack this place and bring it alive. There are also areas where the majority of hon. Members believe that a good or reasonable job has been done and that the issues can be spelt out in detail by experts. Those who consider our debates on Hong Kong will see that


Members of the British Parliament show remarkable knowledge of the detailed workings of Hong Kong and the methods by which its people have made their contributions during the years.
If we add up the number of hon. Members who contributed to this debate, to the previous one, and to our recent debates on Hong Kong, we discover that a substantial proportion of hon. Members has participated actively in them. The accusations of mutual self-congratulation that were levelled against us during the debate on 5 December are neither right nor appropriate. Where anxieties have been expressed by people in Hong Kong to hon. Members, they have been fairly and accurately represented in our debates. We have considered them in detail, and we shall continue dutifully to examine those areas where anxiety remains.
The misapprehensions have been fuelled by some offhand remarks by Conservative Members. The off-the-cuff remark a few weeks ago by the Leader of the House to the hon. Member for Windsor and Maidenhead (Dr. Glyn), suggesting that this Second Reading debate might be an appropriate time to examine the Prime Minister's world tour at the end of December, may have given rise to expectations among hon. Members which you, Mr. Speaker, would have dismissed quickly.
We must draw to the attention of Ministers the short period that is suggested between this Second Reading and the Committee stage of the Bill. Hon. Members have suggested that seven days between now and the Committee stage is not long enough for opinions to be canvassed on the wide range of views and detailed answers from Ministers that have been adduced during the debate. I strongly urge Ministers to postpone the Committee stage from next Monday and to consider, with the Leader of the House, a longer gap so that the people of Hong Kong have an opportunity to read the record of this debate, digest it and perhaps give their views on it. A week is a completely inappropriate period for such feedback to be meaningful.
Clearly, the major issue in the debate is that of nationality. The new nationality, whose name, but little else, has been unveiled today, of British National (Overseas), which sounds more like the name of a petrol company than a status for human beings, is one which obviously we shall debate in more detail later. But issues of major principle have been raised. The right hon. Member for South Down (Mr. Powell) and the hon. Member for Orpington (Mr. Stanbrook) went as far as tabling an amendment suggesting that we should not pass the Bill unless a radical change was made to it.
Concern on the same issue of principle was expressed by my right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, East (Mr. Healey), and by the hon. Members for Stockton, South (Mr. Wrigglesworth) and for Wiltshire, North (Mr. Needham) in another context. It is whether we should designate the nationality of 3 million people who will retain that nationality for the rest of their lives and the nationality that will be transferred to those of their children who are born between now and 1997 by Order in Council, by a statutory instrument in the House, or by the traditional and time-honoured method of a parliamentary Bill.
I fear, however, that the right hon. Member for South Down, having raised this interesting constitutional issue, which is of some importance, has by raising it himself damaged the case for it. Unfortunately, the right hon.

Gentleman has a reputation in immigration and nationality matters. The appearance of his name on the amendment has perhaps fatally flawed it in the eyes of the vast majority of people in Hong Kong. Therefore, the representations that we have received from people in Hong Kong are to the effect that they wish the Government's original plan to go ahead. It is clear that they believe that the motives behind the right hon. Gentleman's amendment are designed to make sure that there is no escape hatch and that it is part of a campaign against those whose skin is not white rather than an interested commentary on the mechanisms by which the House pursues its legislation. That is unfortunate. But if we changed the method by which this nationality was designated, I fear that confusion and uncertainty would more than probably be the result. That having been said, I believe that the Government should take on board some of the apprehensions that have been voiced, and there are methods by which that can be done.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, East said that we could be considering some tentative draft, a statutory instrument with green edges, or a consultative document on the nationality status and that this might be debated before the statutory instrument itself was debated and voted upon. However, there are other options. One is to remove from the schedule the paragraph on nationality and oblige the Government to legislate by means of another Bill. However, there is mention in "Erskine May" of the possibility of exceptional statutory instruments which can be amended in the House and which are flexible enough to be amended. It is clear that some research will have to be done into the possibilities.
In any event, the Government should listen carefully to the representations from both sides of the House reflecting all shades of opinion about the dangerous precedents that they may be establishing in dealing with the problem in this fashion. Certainly they should listen to the wise advice from the right hon. Member for Blackpool, South (Sir P. Blaker), who said that it would be indefensible if we considered this important issue under the normal, traditional mechanism for statutory instruments, with a debate of one and a half hours on the subject. The timing of this issue and the way that it is to be debated have been questioned quite genuinely by hon. Members. We must hope that the Government will listen and give the House an answer as soon as possible.
In the debate on 5 December the Foreign Secretary made it clear that there are genuine concerns about nationality. He said:
Because it is also a matter which affects people in their personal lives, it gives rise to very strong emotions. It was not easy to reconcile the conflicting interests involved".
We have yet to find out how the Government have reconciled those conflicting interests. We shall listen with interest to how they reconcile them.
Hon. Members have today raised the international acceptability of the new status. The new status will be tested by its international acceptability. At this stage the Government are in no position to give guarantees about it, yet the Government will eventually have to answer for the international acceptability of the new status. In the last debate the Minister of State said:
Her Majesty's Government will do all they can to secure for the holders of those passports the same access to other countries as that enjoyed at present by holders of British Dependent Territories citizens passports. There is no reason to believe that third countries will not recognise those passports.


As hon. Members have said repeatedly, the test will not be the colour or the name of the passport. The test will be the attitude of immigration officers when these passports are presented. It would perhaps assist the people of Hong Kong if we could be told whether the Government have taken any steps to pursue this matter.
The number of people in Hong Kong who are entitled to British dependent territories citizens passports is greater than the number of people who go to the bother of applying for passports. For a large number of people in Hong Kong it is a purely academic matter whether they have a passport, because they do little or no travelling. What provision is being made to assess the number of people who are entitled to passports in order to ensure that the huge administrative task of issuing the new passports, which will take a large amount of time, is carried out efficiently and expeditiously?
On the question of statelessness, an anonymous representative was quoted in the assessment office report as saying:
We do not care what happens to Hong Kong for our own sake. However, we worry for our children.
In Hong Kong there are 6,000 parents who are non-ethnic Chinese and who will be rendered stateless after 1997. In previous debates, and again today, the Government have daid that guarantees have been given that these parents will have a form of British nationality. Yet today, although we have been told about the new status for BDTC passport holders, we have been told nothing about those parents who must be the most anxious peiple in Hong Kong. Hon. Members have received today an express letter from Mr. Harileda, the president of the Council of Hong Kong Indian Associations. His letter encloses a substantial petition which expresses precisely the worries and anxieties of those who will find themselves stateless after 1997. There is a moral obligation, if we return to that moral obligation which the Prime Minister sloughed off in Hong Kong, to end the uncertainty for these people.
A number of hon. Members have referred torefugees. They were referred to by the hon. Members for Chislehurst (Mr. Sims) and for Inverness, Nairn and Lochaber (Mr. Johnston) and in the last debate by my ho. Friend the Member for Monklands, West (Mr. Carke), whom I accompanied last year to one of the closed Vietnamese camps. A searing personal experience it was, tool They referred to both the Vietnamese and the other refugees who are in effect stateless in Hong Kong and whose children, who have been bom in Hong Kong since the arrived, are in fact stateless. Although this is a genuine dilemma for this and every other Government, there is again an obligation to give some sign of whether they will be looked after in the years after 1997.
Drafting the basic law for the special administrative region of Hong Kong is central to the future of Hong Kong. The Government have turned their mind to this matter, but they have properly said that this is a matter for the Government of the People's Republic of China. It is not sufficient for the House or the Government to continue to say that it is solely a matter for the People's Republic of China. On 5 December the Foreign Secretary said:
I am confident, too, that they"—
that is, the Government of the People's Republic of China—
will have noted the hope, which has been widely expressed in recent weeks, that the people of Hong Kong will be fully consulted about the drafting of the law.

When the Minister wound up the debate he was even more straightforward and specific, He said:
The Chinese Government have made it clear that the people of Hong Kong will be consulted on its drafting, although the exact form of this consultation has not yer been specified."— [Official Report, 5 December 1984; Vol. 69, c. 391–470]
My right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, East outlined to the House the apparently contradictory statements made by the Prime Minister at her press conference. I have every sympathy for the Prime Minister, who travelled round the world, stopping off for photo calls, going through at least 15 different climates, with all the exhaustion that that involves, not to mention the jet lag. Perhaps she had not been sufficiently briefed or had not understood the briefing, or whatever. However, there is a contradiction between what the Foreign Secretary was saying at the Dispatch Box on 5 December and what the Prime Minister appeared to be saying when she got to the conference in Hong Kong. She siad:
You would not expect representatives of Hong Kong to sit on the drafting committee.
However, as my right hon. Frind said, the Far Eastern Economic Review quoted the pro-Beijing Hong Kong Monthly Wide Angle as saying that there would be a drafting committe of 40 to 50 people formed in the People's National Congress with
at lest 10 from Hong Kong.
It went on to say that a basic law consultative committee, consisting of local people from different classes, would be formed in Hong Kong, Either the Prime Minister is right, or the pro-Beijing newspapers and magazines in Hong Kong are right, but on something so central to the future of the people in Hong Kong it is important that we get the authoritative version, and get it clear.
Sir Patrick Nairne and his colleague, who monitored the assessment exercise, said:
The widespread concern to be involved, as the assessment office report has highlighted, in the drafting of the Basic law is a timely and important token of their wish to stand increasingly on their own political feet.
This is the test which the monitoring team made of the importance of the basic law issue, and therefore this is something on which we require considerable reassurance this evening.

Mr. Adley: Does the hon. Gentleman accept that the fact that the pro-Beijing magazines in Hong Kong are writing these articles, which appear to show a shift, shows the flexibility in the position at the moment and must be encouraging, because the fewer pre-conceived notions the better? Is it not unwise to try to expect too much detail too quickly on all these important detailed points?

Mr. Robertson: The hon. Gentleman knows Chinamuch better tham I do, and knows that these contradictions are difficult for people in Hong Kongto understand. Either the Prime Minister is right and there is no prospect of any local involvement in the process— after all, she was speaking in Hong Kong with the Far Eastern Economic Review on the news stand with that article init—or else something else is known.
It is for Ministers to tell us the correct version. After all, the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Foreign Secretary was sitting next to the Prime Minister when she spoke in hong Kong. With great respect, the hon. Member for Christchurch (Mr. Adley) is not in a position to speak authoritatively for Her Majesty's Government or for the Government of the People's Republic of China. This is a


matter of central importance, and the apparent contradictions of the members of the British Government's team should be expanded upon this evening.
Much has been said about the regular monitoring of events in hong Kong until 1997. The foreign Secretary said, to no great friendly response, that we are not to have the form of regular monitoring that we were led to expect in the previous debate. When the Minister of state replied to our previous debate in the House he said that
some system of regular accountability to the House is of great importance to the people of Hong Kong."—[Official Report, 5 December 1984; Vol. 69, c. 467.]
We must set against that what the Prime Minister said, or what she was quoted in the Financial Times as saying, that
there would be no need for a formal annual debate o Hong Kong at Westmister…Parliamentary debates would occur from time to time.
We have taken on immense obligations for the detail of the future of people in Hong Kong and we should be able to expect at least a report from the Joint Liaison Group on the work that it is doing, as well as a report from Her Majesty's Government on a wide range of other issues that will be directly within their own and unique province over the next 12 years, so that Parliament can judge and assess the necessity, perhaps, for an annual debate. Hon. Members may feel that without that regular accountability they will not be in a position to come to a proper judgment on the developments that are taking place on the other side of the world.
There is some confusion about the Joint Liaison Group and its membership. There was that astonishing gaff by the Prime Minister when she said, while in Hong Kong, that the Governor would be a member of the group, when it had never been contemplated as a practical possibility that he would be. Perhaps we shall be taken a little along the membership road by the Minister when he replies.
There is apprehension in Hong Kong that the Joint Liaison Group may be concerned with overseeing, monitoring or, at worst, analysing and interfering in the progress towards democracy within the colony. The Bill does not touch directly on progress towards democracy but the issue has been raised by my hon. Friends the Members for Wrexham (Dr. Marek), and for Warley, East (Mr. Faulds) and by the hon. Members for Stockton, South, for Chislehurst and for Christchurch.
In this Parliament we have received wise counsel from unelected channels of communication within Hong Kong. The delegations from Hong Kong and the briefings that they have sent us have been of enormous importance to our detailed consideration of these matters. I include the contribution of Sir S. Y. Chung, the senior member of UMELCO, who was appointed under the Government of the right hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Mr. Heath). The right hon. Gentleman made some slighting references to the appointed members of UMELCO when we last debated Hong Kong. We have received wise advice from those in Hong Kong who have spoken up strongly on behalf of the people in Hong Kong.
But we should recognise that there is a generation rising in Hong Kong—it is fundamentally a young population —which will not continue to be satisfied with the type of relaxed and confortable set-up that has run Hong Kong for the past years. Whatever the reasons have been for us not interfering in that arrangement, the fact is that pressure

from the young will continue and must be taken on board. Mrs. Selina Chow, who has often come over and spoken to us, could not accept the White Paper on progress towards democracy because it did not provide an end product to take us a stage beyond 1987, when the first review is to take place. We would be wise to look carefully at the future of the developments.
The debate has provided us with another valuable opportunity to clear the air on some important matters of continuing interest and concern about the future of Hong Kong. I hope that the Minister can now flesh out the framework of Hong Kong's future. Hon. Members on both sides of the House will listen with great interest. They will, of course, maintain that interest.

The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mr. Richard Luce): I am sure that hon. Members will agree that today, as on 5 December, there has been a large measure of support for the agreement and, I hope, in broad terms, for the legislation that will help to effect part of it. Several hon. Members, including my hon. Friend the Member for Chislehurst (Mr. Sims) and the hon. Members for Wrexham (Dr. Marek) and for Warley, East (Mr. Faulds), said that it was important that there should be a broad measure of bipartisan support in the House over the agreement on Hong Kong, for the sake of the people of Hong Kong. I believe, and hope that I am right in saying, that that support exists today just as it did on 5 December.
Nevertheless, there was a not uncharacteristic music hall knock-about performance from the right hon. Member for Leeds, East (Mr. Healey) who seemed to be enjoying himself for the first 10 or 15 minutes—

Mr. Healey: So did the hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Luce: —when he talked about the Prime Minister. I always enjoy myself. The right hon. Member for Leeds, East can talk about tigers and elephants to his heart's content, but the plain fact is that a very remarkable agreement has been reached over Hong Kong. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister and my right hon. and learned Friend the Foreign Secretary played leading parts in achieving that agreement, and they deserve great credit for it.
My hon. Friends the Members for Boothferry (Sir P. Bryan), for Southampton, Test (Mr. Hill), for Gillingham (Mr. Couchman) and for Harrow, West (Sir J. Page) referred to the importance of having confidence in Hong Kong. Indeed, my hon. Friend the Member for Test talked about Hong Kong's present economic success. Its success is striking in that exports and growth have increased dramatically and Hong Kong is now displaying a fresh sense of confidence.
I am glad that many hon. Members have paid tribute to the people of Hong Kong and to the way in which they have reacted to the agreement. I join the hon. Member for Hamilton (Mr. Robertson) in paying tribute to the members of UMELCO, some of whom have been here during the past few says and during the course of this debate. There can be no doubt of the Government's strong commitment to Hong Kong or about the full responsibilities that we hold, and will continue to hold, until 1 July 1997.
Judging by the debate on 5 December, it will be remarkably difficult to answer all the points raised.


However, I shall do my best to answer as many as I can. I hope that hon. Members will bear with me, but if I feel that I have failed to answer all the points raised I shall attempt to write to those hon. Members involved. I shall start with the important point about the views of hon. Members and the Government's accountability to the House.
The right hon. Member for Leeds, East referred to an annual debate, which he and others mentioned in the previous debate. This issue goes wider than that.

Mr. Healey: With respect, I ask the Minister to look at what I said then and this time. We ask for an annual report, with the right to debate it if it seems suitable. The important thing is the annual report, which was explained in detail.

Mr. Luce: Many hon. Members have recommended not only an annual report but a definite commitment to an annual debate. If I misinterpreted what the right hon. Gentleman said, I apologise.
The issue goes wider than that. There is a desire on the part of the House to ensure that it has an adequate say with the Executive over important matters connected with Hong Kong. It features in connection with the Bill and its Committee stage. All I can say to the House is that my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State and I have noted carefully the strong views that were expressed during the debate. However, I ask the House to understand that my right hon. and learned Friend and I do not underestimate the importance of the views of the House, but we both doubt the value of institutionalising debates on Hong Kong in such a way that we would literally ritualise them in the form of an annual debate.
My right hon. and learned Friend and I believe that the most effective way to deal with that is to have debates in the House as and when required. That point was made effectively by my hon. Friends the Members for Newport, West (Mr. Robinson) and for Chislehurst. My hon. Friend the Member for Leicester, East (Mr. Bruinvels) also referred to it. The ad hoc approach, when we have debates as and when required, would be a more effective way to deal with the problem. In addition, as my right hon. and learned Friend has already said, the Government will report to the House on important developments on Hong Kong at any time that we think that that is necessary.
A major part of the debate in which accountability featured related to the provisions in the Bill for nationality.

Dr. Jeremy Bray: Will the Minister undertake that as well as reporting on important events Ministers will also report annually?

Mr. Luce: I have just said that we do not wish to give that undertaking, nor do we think that it is a sensible way to treat the matter. I have tried to give the reasons for that.
I should like to refer to the important matter of nationality, on which the right hon. Member for South Down (Mr. Powell) spoke freely. My hon. Friend the Member for Orpington (Mr. Stanbrook), my right hon. Friend the Member for Blackpool, South (Sir P. Blaker), my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Burton (Mr. Lawrence), the hon. Member for Warley, East, the right hon. and learned Member for Aberavon (Mr. Morris), who has expalined that he cannot be present for the wind-up, and many others referred to that matter. As my right hon. and learned Friend the Foreign Secretary said, paragraph

2 of the schedule contains an enabling power for a subsequent Order or Orders in Council to be made to give effect to the provisions of the United Kingdom memorandum that was handed to the Chinese when the agreement was signed on 19 December. The framework for subordinate legislation is clearly stated in the schedule. It will provide that
British Dependent Territories citizenship cannot be retained or acquired on or after the relevant date"—
that is 1 July 1997—
by virtue of a connection with Hong Kong".
The schedule creates a new form of British nationality that may be acquired by
persons who are British Dependent Territories citizens by virtue of any such connection".
In addition, provision will be made for the avoidance of statelessness as a result of the changes and for such amendments to nationality legislation as are supplementary, transitional or consequential to those main purposes. In other words, the content of the order or orders is determined by the framework laid down in the Bill.
The right hon. Member for South Down and my hon. Friend the Member for Orpington tabled an amendment which, in effect, deplores the use of an Order in Council to amend nationality legislation on the ground that it does not permit the detailed consideration and amendment of the Government's proposals that enactment by Bill would afford.
As my right hon. and learned Friend the Foreign Secretary said, it is simply not possible in the time available for the enactment of the Bill to include full details of all the legislative amendments that will be necessary for the implementation of the commitments which, on 5 December, the House unanimously agreed that we should accept. Nevertheless, the Government consider it right that the Bill should contain a clear indication of all the legislation that will be required. As I have said, the Bill sets out clearly the parameters of the amendments that will be necessary to our nationality legislation. Those amendments will flow directly from the provisions of the United Kingdom memorandum. Orders made under this provision will be subject to the affirmative resolution procedure, which will allow full opportunity for debate in both Houses.
I understand the wish of the House to be able to debate thoroughly the Order in Council on nationality, and I can readily give an assurance that it will be introduced in draft form. That is assured by paragraph 2(4) of the schedule. I give an assurance also that a sufficient interval will be left between the publication of a draft order and its debate in the House to allow the people of Hong Kong and hon. Members to form views about it and to make those views known. If there were pressures to change the terms of the order, the Government would certainly consider withdrawing the order and changing it before asking the House to approve it. I again reassure the House that my right hon. and learned Friend and I have taken firmly on board the views expressed today about this matter.
A number of points have been made about the nationality title, including points by my right hon. Friend the Member for Blackpool, South and the hon. Member for Warley, East. As my right hon. and learned Friend the Foreign Secretary said, it is appropriate that the title of the new form of nationality should be "British National (Overseas)". Although the name does not carry any direct link with Hong Kong, I confirm that it is the Government's


intention that it should be held only by persons who come under the scope of the Order in Council on nationality to be made under the Bill. Careful consideration has been given to the title of the new form of nationality. The Government believe that "British National (Overseas)" best meets the needs of all parties concerned. On the one hand, the title makes it clear that that is a form of British nationality and, on the other, it does not imply a continuing constitutional link between Britain and Hong Kong after 1997.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Blackpool, South asked about debate on the title. The title of the new form of nationality was announced today for the first time. The Government consider that that it is important to allow time to explain the choice of this title to the people of Hong Kong. There will be opportunities for including the title in the Bill at a later stage if it is considered appropriate. If the new title for nationality status is introduced in another place, there will be an opportunity for the House to discuss it when the amendment is reported back.
In a number of important speeches hon. Members drew attention to continuing anxiety about the possibility of statelessness. I believe that it is important that, once again, I should set out the position. This matter was raised by the hon. Members for Hamilton, for Inverness, Nairn and Lochaber (Mr. Johnston) and for Stockton, South (Mr. Wrigglesworth), who told me that he could not be here for the conclusion of the debate, and by the right hon. Member for Leeds, East. My right hon. and learned Friend the Foreign Secretary clearly stated our intentions.
It is our intention that no British national or any child born on or after 1 July 1997 to a British national should be made stateless as a result of the nationality arrangements envisaged in the Bill. It is intended that such a person covered by the provisions should acquire British overseas citizenship. We have given strong commitments on this matter, and I assure the House that they will be carried out.
I should answer the point made by the hon. Member for Warley, East, who unfortunately is not in the Chamber, about the position of non-Chinese Hong Kong people living outside Hong Kong, because I know that this is one aspect of statelessness about which the hon. Gentleman and others have been concerned. Broadly speaking, they will be covered by the provisions. If the persons concerned would fall within the provisions of the order when resident in Hong Kong, they would also fall within them even if they are not currently resident there. It will not be residence that is the deciding factor but the fact that BDTC status is derived from Hong Kong. We have taken that important point on board.
On the question of the title that we have introduced, the right hon. Member for South Down talked of the Government deceiving the House.

Mr. Healey: rose—

Mr. Luce: I still have a large number of questions to answer. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will permit me to continue. If I have time later in my speech, I will try to give way.
The right hon. Member for South Down says that the Government are deceiving the House.

Mr. J. Enoch Powell: indicated dissent.

Mr. Luce: I thought that that was what the right hon. Gentleman implied. At any rate, he said that there was a deception.

Mr. Powell: That is correct.

Mr. Luce: I am sorry if I misinterpreted the right hon. Gentleman.
The right hon. Gentleman, who served on the Committee on the British Nationality Act 1981, knows that there are three main categories of people with the word "British" in their title. However, the title "British citizen" is the only one that confers the right of abode. BDTCs do not have the right of abode in Britain, although they have certain entitlements. Equally, the title announced today does not give a right of abode here. It preserves all but one of the entitlements possessed by those who are at present BDTCs. The one exception is right of transmissibility.
My hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch (Mr. Adley) asked about consular protection.

Mr. Healey: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Luce: I cannot answer the debate properly without attempting to cover all the points that have been made. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will permit me to continue. I have yet to answer at least two points made by the right hon. Gentleman himself.

Mr. Healey: The question is—

Mr. Luce: As the right hon. Gentleman presses me, I will give way.

Mr. Healey: There is a question, to which both sides of the House attach great importance, the answer to which will influence our attitude towards the Committee. Will the Government undertake to introduce a form of Order in Council which is either in draft with green edges, or amendable?

Mr. Luce: I have already answered that question very clearly. First, it is to be a draft order. Secondly, it is our intention to introduce a draft order well in advance, to give time not only for the House but for the people of Hong Kong to assess it and to give us their views. We will take those views fully into account before introducing a draft order for debate in the House. I hope to reply to some of the other points made by the right hon. Gentleman.
First, however, I take up the concern of the hon. Member for Inverness, Nairn and Lochaber about the acceptability of new passports. I assure him that the Government will do all that they can to secure, for holders of new-style British passports, the same access to other countries as that enjoyed at present by holders of BDTC passports. The level of consular protection will also remain the same. There is every reason to be confident of international acceptance of the passports. When the time comes, we will do our utmost to ensure that that is forthcoming.
The right hon. Member for Leeds, East talked about the retention of BDTC status and asked whether people who took up the new nationality status before 1997 could keep their old status until 1997. I am happy to assure him that that is indeed the Government's intention. We do not envisage people who take up the status of British National (Overseas) losing their BDTC status until 1997, except in the unlikely event of their renouncing it.
My hon. Friend the Member for Chislehurst and the right hon. Member for Leeds, East asked about the Joint


Liaison Group. It comes into force as a result of the agreement. As my right hon. and learned Friend said, we are working on the practicalities. Its establishment is still some months off, and work remains to be done. The Government will announce the membership of the group and other details in due course. I would not wish to anticipate the discussions that we shall have with the Governor this week. The Government will approach the Joint Liaison Group in a positive spirit. Co-operation with the Chinese Government will be of the utmost importance to ensure a smooth transition.
Several right hon. and hon. Members have suggested that Hong Kong unofficial should be represented on the group. As my right hon. and learned Friend made clear in our debate on 5 December, that would not be appropriate. The Joint Liaison Group is a diplomatic body. Hong Kong Government officials will participate on the British side and there will be full consultation on the group's work with the Executive Council of Hong Kong. I note what has been said about sub-groups, especially by my hon. Friend the Member for Chislehurst. The establishment of such groups will be decided by the Joint Liaison Group, and attendance at its meetings will depend on the subjects under discussion.
The right hon. Member for Leeds, East asked whether the Joint Liaison Group would oversee constitutional development of Hong Kong before 1997. The answer is no. It is firmly agreed that the British Government will be responsible for the administration of Hong Kong until 1 July 1997. That includes responsibility for constitutional development. However, we have all recognised the need in this context to keep in mind the provisions of the agreement on the future of Hong Kong, and the plans which were published in the Hong Kong Government's White Paper were framed accordingly. Those considerations will continue to be important, but the responsibility remains ours. The Joint Liaison Group will have no overseeing role.
My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Burton referred to important freedoms in Hong Kong—a matter which was provided for in the agreement and which is of profound importance to the future of Hong Kong. The agreement provides explicitly for the maintenance of rights and freedoms which were previously in force in Hong Kong and protected by law. It also stipulates that provisions of relevant international covenants will remain in force. All of this will be enshrined in the basic law and remain unchanged for 50 years. Individuals will be able to challenge actions of the Executive in the Hong Kong courts as they do now.
Several right hon. and hon. Members have referred to constitutional developments in Hong Kong. That matter was discussed quite widely during the debate of 5 December, when my right hon. and learned Friend made it clear that the Government support a progressive strengthening of representative government in the territory during the next 10 years. There will be a prospect of further review in 1997.
I have attempted to answer as many questions as possible. We must do our utmost to maintain a climate of confidence in Hong Kong. That is in everyone's interests. There is much agreement in Hong Kong on the accord that has been reached with the Chinese concerning the future. It does not come as a surprise that there is some disagreement about the Bill, which will be the subject of much greater scrutiny in Committee.
By giving the Bill a Second Reading, I believe that we shall take Hong Kong down a further road towards a strong and confident future. That is my strong recommendation.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read a Second time.

Bill committed to a Committee of the whole House.—[Mr. Major.]

Committee tomorrow.

Orders of the Day — Northern Ireland (District Electoral Areas)

10 pm

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Mr. Nicholas Scott): I beg to move,
That the draft District Electoral Areas (Northern Ireland) Order 1985, which was laid before this House on 19th December, be approved.
The purpose of this draft order is to give effect, without modification, to the recommendations contained in the report by the district electoral areas commissioner, which my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State laid before Parliament on 5 December last year. The commissioner, Sir Frank Harrison, was appointed on 22 June 1984 under article 2(1) of the District Electoral Areas Commissioner (Northern Ireland) Order 1984 to recommend arrangements for the grouping together of local government wards in Northern Ireland into district electoral areas. As the House knows, local government elections in the Province are held with each elector casting one transferable vote in a multi-member constituency. The constituencies used for local government purposes are called district electoral areas. The draft order also gives names to the electoral areas which would come into being, on its enactment.
Before turning to a brief explanation of the draft order, I would like to take this opportunity to pay the warmest tribute to Sir Frank Harrison's thorough and expert discharge of his important task. He brought to bear an unrivalled knowledge of the subject, gained over more than 10 years of service as the local government boundaries commissioner in Northern Ireland, together with independence of mind, impartiality and sound judgment. I am sure that the House will join me in recording our gratitude for a job well done, and in extending our thanks further to the three assistant commissioners who helped Sir Frank, and to his hard-working staff.
It may assist the House if I first describe the background of this draft order. At present, the composition of district electoral areas in Northern Ireland remains as set down in 1973, originally under the provisions of the Electoral Law (Northern Ireland) Order 1972. The first stage in the process of revising the basis of electoral areas was the recent review carried out by the local government boundaries commissioner of the number, boundaries and names of local government districts in Northern Ireland and the number, boundaries and names of the wards into which each district is divided. The boundary commissioner's final recommendations were published on 18 January 1984, and given legislative effect in the Local Government (Boundaries) Order (Northern Ireland) 1984, which will be familiar to most hon. Members.
The district electoral areas commissioner was subsequently appointed to recommend the grouping of wards into electoral areas in accordance with rules determined by Parliament. These rules are to be found in schedule 3 to the District Electoral Areas Commissioner (Northern Ireland) Order 1984.
The rules are, in brief, that no ward can be included partly in one electoral area and partly in another; that each electoral area must consist of five, six or seven wards; that each ward must have at least one boundary in common with another ward in the same electoral area; and that each area is to be given a name.
Within this framework, the district electoral areas commissioner was empowered to propose such groupings of wards as he saw fit, although schedule 2 to the order prescribed a number of procedural requirements in the conduct of the review.
The most important of these was the requirement placed on the commissioner to publish provisional recommendations and to invite written representations on them within one month of publication. Thereafter, he was to hold public hearings if representations were made by district councils or by more than 100 local government electors in a district. The commissioner was also given a discretionary power to hold public hearings to consider other representations.
In the introduction to his final report, the commissioner describes how he went about his task. His provisional recommendations were published on 9 July 1984 and over the next few days were made very widely available in Northern Ireland. They appeared in 44 Belfast and local newspapers, were publicly displayed in about 100 locations throughout the Province, and were sent to all Northern Ireland Members of Parliament, Assembly Members, councillors and political parties, as well as to other interested bodies. Representations in writing were invited by 24 August, and some 70 submissions were received. Between 3 September and 15 October, the commissioner and the three assistant commissioners held public inquiries in 17 of Northern Ireland's 26 local government districts, at which oral submissions were made by 71 interested bodies and individuals. In the light of those representations, the commissioner modified the provisional recommendations for 15 of the districts.
Although under no obligation to do so, the commissioner also disclosed the general considerations that weighed with him in producing the final pattern of electoral areas within the statutory rules. These were principally recognition of existing community identities, a desire to form local government constituencies in which the differing sections of each community could secure representation and a conscious effort, where possible, to avoid groupings that would create electoral areas split by natural geographical barriers. The commissioner also makes plain in his report, as he did at the public hearings, that he regarded political arguments about the composition of electoral areas as
speculative, and of much less value that the identification of social and community links which were there to be seen".
The Government wholly endorse the recommendations that have resulted from this exercise and that are given legislative form in the draft order before the House tonight. I shall now deal briefly with its main provisions.
Article 2 of the draft order provides that it will come into operation on 15 May 1985, which is, of course, polling day for this year's local government elections in Northern Ireland. However, for the purposes of all proceedings—preliminary or relating to an election to be held on or after that date—the order shall come into operation forthwith. That provision is to ensure that everyone involved in preparing for the local elections—the election staff, the district councils and the political parties—can do so immediately on the basis of the new electoral areas.
Article 3, in conjunction with the schedule to the order, is the core of the legislation. It provides that each local government district shall be divided into district electoral areas comprising specified wards and returning a specified


number of councillors. The details appear in the schedule, which is organised alphabetically throughout by district, by named electoral area within districts and by constituent wards within electoral areas. Column 1 of the schedule lists the electoral areas and, reading across the page, the constituent wards and number of councillors for each electoral area appear in columns 2 and 3 respectively. The number of councillors in any given electoral area is 5, 6 or 7, following the rules under which the commissioner was required to make his recommendations.
Article 4 provides that article 3 of and Schedule 1 to the Northern Ireland (Local Elections) Order 1977, which are the provisions containing the present list of electoral areas, shall cease to have effect.
I do not have to persuade this House of the importance to Northern Ireland of fair elections producing elected local institutions that are truly representative of the communities they administer. The Government are sure that the electoral framework of district electoral areas that the commissioner has devised provides the best possible basis for such fair elections to take place. I have no doubt that these arrangements will stand the test of time as evidence of their author's integrity, expertise and willingness to listen carefully to all points of view from the communities affected.
It is essential that this draft order should come into force at the earliest opportunity so that all those engaged in the forthcoming district council elections in Northern Ireland have sufficient time to make their necessary preparations. I commend it to the House.

Mr. Stuart Bell: I thank the Minister for taking us through the report and the recommendations of Sir Frank Harrison and then through the order itself. I sympathise with those right hon. and hon. Members from Northern Ireland constituencies who are anxious to speak and to make what are no doubt pertinent points about the order before us.
Those who are elected to the Chamber understand that their political lives depend upon the ballot box, but many, including myself, are bemused by the additional hazard caused by the Boundary Commission. It is not surprising that, depending upon how the new district electoral areas affect the political complexion of the district elections to be held in Northern Ireland on 15 May, a variety of points are likely to be made this evening.
Notwithstanding my trepidation about the work of boundary commissioners in general, I make no criticism of Sir Frank Harrison, QC. The Minister paid him a warm tribute with which I associate myself.
An article published in the Belfast Telegraph on Tuesday, 13 March 1984 reported that Sir Frank recognised the delicacy of his task and that every change in the boundaries must have some political consequences, however trivial. He also said that some changes might have large political consequences.
When the first set of provisional changes in the boundaries were published, Sir Frank said:
The purpose of the boundary revision is to reflect the massive shifts of population which have taken place since 1972 and to group electors into districts and wards which will lay the basis for better representation of people now linked by the particular and differing geographical, social and economic circumstances which will give them group identities.
Sir Frank wished to create wards which people might recognise as being

coherent units, deserving of separate and distinct representation and reflecting differences in interest.
The right hon. Member for South Down (Mr. Powell) has reminded the House in the past that local government in Northern Ireland is different from that in the rest of the United Kingdom. The major pre-occupation of Her Majesty's Opposition in the past was to urge local authorities to seek to create employment. Most local authorities have set up their own development organisations which generally do a useful job. However, even when debating an order which groups the wards for the purpose of proportional representation it is as well to set down what we hope of those elected to local government districts.
The result of Sir Frank Harrison's deliberations are before us tonight. I am not aware of any boundary changes that meet with universal acclaim. That is not the fault of boundary commissioners. For the elections to be fought in Cleveland at the same time in May the boundary commissioners have reduced the number of seats by 12. I mention that in passing, but it is easy to imagine that such a dwindling in the number of elected representatives will not meet with the approval of the major political party in Cleveland, since that party will lose representation.
I have no doubt that the same argument will be used tonight, but the changes will have a less draconian consequence for the people of Northern Ireland, for representatives who face an election or those who aspire to be candidates.
A review of local government in Northern Ireland will reveal why the changes are necessary. As the House knows, the local government system was reorganised in 1973. Indeed, the order derives from section 38(1)(a) of the Northern Ireland Constitution Act 1973, which had its origins in a similar Act passed in 1972. However, it is fair to add that the proposals for rationalisation had been under consideration for some years by the Stormont Government. In 1967, the Northern Ireland White Paper acknowledged that the system stemmed from the nineteenth century and required an in-depth reappraisal and overhaul.
The Cameron report of 1969, which dealt with the civil disturbances in Northern Ireland, found a widespread sense of injustice among Catholics about housing allocation, local government appointments and the manipulation of local government boundaries. The consequence of the report was that some administrative reforms were made, including the setting up of a central housing authority and the establishment of a review body to undertake a complete reappraisal of existing proposals for the reshaping of local government.
In passing, we hope and trust that there will be no unforeseen consequence of the present boundary arrangements in the order. We hope and pray that the divisions that existed in 1969 will not be brought about a second time by the new boundaries.
I have seen articles in some parts of the Northern Irish press putting forward the view that the new electoral districts in Belfast are set to cement sectarian divisions. Phrases such as "electoral apartheid" have been used. Life is full of unforeseen consequences. I am sure that the Government are as mindful of that as I am. The principles on which the Boundary Commission operate are laid down by statute and are devoid of political intent. The Minister


took us through the statutory requirements that were binding on Sir Frank Harrison, when the Minister metioned the recommendations of the report.
The present review, which culminates in this order, began in November 1982 and has had to take into account the inevitable large movement in population that occurred in Northern Ireland during the past 10 years. During that period there was an overall rise of 20,000 in the population, yet there was a corresponding fall of 65,000 in the number of Belfast voters, with corresponding increases in North Down, Newtownabbey, Ards, Lisburn, Antrim and Londonderry.
In the end, the people of Northern Ireland will vote for the type of local government that they want, and, having voted for it, they will make it work. Local government functions are divided into two broad categories: regional or area functions, and district and local services. The regional or area functions originally dealt with such matters as education, health, personal social services and the like, and under a subsequent report, known as the Macrory report, were to be transferred from local authorities to Stormont departments or area boards. The district and local services were to be given to 26 district councils, which would also have responsibility for nominating people for the area boards and which would have a consultative role.
The Macrory report noted the unique circumstances of Northern Ireland, that is, its geographical size and the high proportion of central Government expenditure on local services. The existence of the Stormont tier of government was cited to answer those critics who believed that the people of Northern Ireland were being defranchised.
As the House knows, during the process of reorganisation, Westminster imposed direct rule and introduced proportional representation in the hope that this system would ensure adequate representaton for minorities, eliminate disputes about council boundaries and facilitate cross voting between the different parties. The most noticeable consequence of that was the increase in party representation. In the pre-1973 local government system, only 65 per cent. of councillors were party representatives in the county councils, and only 39 per cent. were party representatives in the urban district councils. By 1979, however, 91 per cent. of councillors were party representatives, reflecting the fact that local government was the only opportunity for electoral activity outside Westminster. The consequence — perhaps foreseen, perhaps unforeseen—was that local elections began to be fought on issues that had little to do with local services.
However, proportional representation encouraged more candidates to stand. As a result, in 1979, almost all councillors had to submit themselves to the electoral process and there were many fewer uncontested elections. The tradition of lengthy service has been eroded with the influx of new, young councillors. Those young councillors tend to come from a fairly restricted socio-economic background, but councillors tend to spend more time on council business and the public continue to regard councillors as public representatives to be contacted about public matters. I am sure that that will continue to be the case after the May elections.
At least one hon. Member is anxious lest parties do not have enough time to prepare for the May elections. There

is never enough time for preparation for or to fight local elections, but, in the words of the music hall song, it all comes right on the night, except of course if one happens to lose the election. In such circumstances, victory has a thousand fathers, but defeat is an orphan. I do not know whether the order will produce fathers or whether it will be an orphan, but I doubt whether any boundary commission could have done as well. Although I shall listen with care to the representations that will be made tonight, I believe that Sir Frank Harrison has done a commendable job, with his vast experience, and that his recommendations cannot be bettered.

Mr. William Ross: The House listened with great interest to the hon. Member for Middlesbrough (Mr. Bell). I listened with some sadness, because it became apparent during his speech that his education in Northern Ireland is far from complete. Indeed, I would say that it has scarcely begun. The hon. Gentleman said that he hoped that there would be no unforeseen results from the order. I hope that not only will he read the debate on 6 February 1984 but that when I have finished he will be wiser about the results of this election. I do not believe that the result will be unforeseen by the Government. When the election is over, the Government will pretend that they are shocked and surprised, but the attitude will be difficult to accept.
The order is the final legislative step in bringing the new local government district electoral areas into operation. The debate follows the debate on 6 February 1984, when we discussed the local government boundaries order, which followed approaches made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Lagan Valley (Mr. Molyneaux), who asked that there should be not more than six wards in a group. We asked for between four and six wards. In his letter of 26 January 1984 to the Secretary of State, my right hon. Friend said.
We are sure you will take into consideration our view that the number of wards grouped in one electoral area should be between four and six, and only in very exceptional circumstances should the number be as high as seven.
My right hon. Friend also said:
It would be a pity if new electoral areas were to span Parliamentary Constituency Boundaries in view of the Parliamentary Boundary Commission's recent efforts to avoid splitting local authority boundaries.
Anyone who reads the debate on 6 February will discover that the Minister gave his reasons for ignoring that request. At the end of this debate, we shall see that the Government had reasons for ignoring the first request, that the figure should not, except in exceptional circumstances, be as high as seven. Wherever possible, they have accepted a recommendation for seven wards, which means that an individual can now be elected with only 12·5 per cent. of the first preference vote. But 12·5 per cent. of the final vote means that anyone with 10 per cent. of the vote in such a grouping is almost certain of election without a quota, of course. I add "without a quota" because I fear that right hon. and hon. Members of this House do not fully understand the workings of proportional representation, which is the main reason why Northern Ireland is saddled with it.
On 6 December 1983 my right hon. Friend had a reply from the former Secretary of State for Northern Ireland in which the right hon. Gentleman said:


 Having looked into this, it seems that our thinking is very much along the same lines. You hoped that in general not more than 5 or 6 wards should be grouped together. This seems sensible to the Government"—
it is a pity that they changed their mind—
although for flexibility I expect that the draft order, which will shortly be laid before Parliament, will provide for up to 7 wards to be grouped. However, it seems likely that in practice most groupings will consist of 5 or 6 wards.
In the light of what has happened, I find that an astonishing statement by the Secretary of State.
In the debate on 6 February 1984, I said that the commissioner was being put into a straitjacket with a five, six, seven, rule. I said:
By accepting the view that is set out in the order, we are putting the commissioner in a straitjacket. He will be left without the room he needs to manoeuvre in drawing his boundaries around the most reasonable areas in each council district. The Minister will know that circumstances and conditions differ widely from ward to ward and county to county in Ulster. The commissioner should be allowed the maximum amount of room for manoeuvre."—[Official Report, 6 February 1984; Vol. 53, c. 704.]
The plain truth is that that sound advice was not followed, and the results of not following it are already foreseen.
On page eight of his report, the district electoral commissioner, Sir Frank Harrison, sets out:
To construct an electoral area which can also have a discernible community identity required, not only the grouping of the right number of wards, but also the best possible selection to create electoral areas readily identifiable by the electors within their bounds, and which would form local government constituencies in which the differing sections of each community could secure representation.
It is that last phrase that really matters.
Sir Frank, in his report, goes on:
I also sought to create constituencies of manageable size and which could be efficiently served by the elected representatives.
I have with me a copy of the map which the commissioner kindly produced when the report was coming out. Hon. Members who are interested will find a copy in the Library. I want to refer to one or two of these manageable areas which he sought to create—the areas with which the electors readily identify themselves.
I start with my own immediate council area, Limavady, and the Benbradagh area, in which I live. It stretches from Feeny to Limavady, a distance of 15 miles, spanning part of what is now the urban area of Limavady and a very large rural hinterland.
It is a matter of regret that the commissioner apparently was not allowed to use the evidence of his own eyes when he was constructing these wards. I recall clearly having taken part in the arguments and debates with the commissioner in the first instance when the existing local government wards were drawn up. We were told then that he would keep before him the evidence of his eyes. He said that he would look at the houses under construction and so forth. He said that he might therefore be drawing the occasional small ward. On this occasion we were told that that was not possible and that he had to go strictly by the number of people we were on the register at the relevant date, which was November 1982. It means that that council area is already one seat short.
I represent also the Coleraine district. That contains a district electoral area known as Bann. It stretches south from Castlerock to Kilrea. It is only 20 miles long, but again it spans a large rural area containing many differing interests. There is very little communication between the people living at each end of the area, yet they are supposed to identity closely with each other.
In the Omagh district area, there are two areas, Mid-Tyrone and West Tyrone, which geographically are larger in area than some council areas, yet those who live in those large, sparsely populated areas are supposed to meet the criteria that the commissioner laid down on page 8 of his report.
The daftest one of all is in Fermanagh — the area known as Erne West. It stretches the full length of south Fermanagh. I do not know how long Fermanagh is, but, judging by the map, I think it must be 35 or 40 miles long. The hon. Member for Fermanagh and South Tyrone (Mr. Maginnis) is nodding his head, confirming what I have said. The Minister ought to drive down Erne West on a Sunday afternoon—he would need a Sunday afternoon to drive down it. How he expects councillors living in Belleek to represent those at the other end of the area is beyond the comprehension of anybody who knows that county.
On 6 February I said that I thought the commissioner was being placed in a straitjacket. I made it my business to attend one or two of the inquiries that he held into his provisional recommendations. One of the inquiries which I attended was in my own constituency, Magherafelt, where the hon. Member for Mid-Ulster (Rev. William McCrea) lives. He was present at that inquiry and made the case from his point of view. He was a year late with it, because he talked about ward boundaries rather than district electoral areas.
I made it my business to ask the commissioner whether the five, six, seven rule caused him any problems or difficulties. He gave a very clear and wordy reply. He said that it had not so much caused him problems and difficulties as placed him in a straitjacket — the very words that I had used a few months earlier in the House. I was not only astonished but delighted that I had been proved to be an accurate prophet on that occasion at least.
The commissioner also hinted that if he had known that not only would he be landed with the job of drawing up the district electoral areas but that he would also be constricted to five, six or seven wards, the conclusions he reached relating to ward boundaries and even to council and constituency boundaries might have been very different.
It was a most interesting day. I am sorry that the Minister missed it. He should have been there. Indeed, perhaps the Minister ought to have taken more interest in the matter than he has until now. By that I mean that, apart from listening to the advice of his officials, he should have gone down to the area and looked at what is happening there, because this is not the best way to deal with the matter. Quite honestly, it is a bit of a mess, and some district electoral areas in Northern Ireland are daft.
The Minister has to accept the order. He told us on 6 February 1984 that he liked proportional representation. He said:
I know that some right hon. and hon. Members do not like proportional representation, but I happen to do so. However, my speech tonight has nothing to do with that matter.
Has his liking for proportional representation allowed a little beam to creep into his eyes, so that he is not able to see all that is going on?
Reading the debate on 6 February was a most interesting and illuminating process. I would recommend it to every hon. Member who is here tonight, because I think that they will enjoy it, especially in relation to what will happen after 15 May. For example, the Minister said:


We considered the range of the number of wards to be grouped very carefully in preparing the draft order, and in the light of the representation received"—
I assume that that refers to the correspondence between the leader of the Unionist party and himself—
the debate on this draft order was deferred to allow time for further consideration.
Despite the fact that I gave careful thought to the representations made to me, that consideration has confirmed our original view that for the purpose of holding local elections proportional representation, using the single transferable vote system, the rules set out in schedule 3"—
applying to district electoral areas with five, six and seven seats—
are most likely to optimise the effects of that system…PR should be the electoral system for local and Assembly elections in Northern Ireland because use of the simple majority system in local elections gave inadequate representation to substantial minorities in the institutions of provincial and local government.
I would be greatly obliged if the Minister could tell us what percentage he considers to be a "substantial" minority. Is it 5, 10, 20 or 50 per cent.? That was something on which he based his policy and his figures, and he should tell us his reasoning. A far better way than proportional representation to achieve representation of minorities of any size is to increase the number of councillors and have smaller electorates. If that is done, even relatively small groups of electors can find a party to represent them.
In that debate, the Minister, partly in answer to my right hon. Friend the Member for Strangford (Mr. Taylor), went on to say about the principle being confirmed in Northern Ireland:
The hope was the PR-STV would increase the chances that representatives of both sides of the community would have to co-operate for local government to operate effectively. We remain of the view that the method is right for these elections, given Northern Ireland's circumstances.
I cannot understand how a system that is clearly designed to bring about a position where no single party is in the majority makes local government or any sort of government operate more effectively. The converse is bound to be true, and the old saying, "Too many cooks spoil the broth", would fit well in this instance, as every party is in business to achieve maximum power, and that power can be achieved only when that party has a majority in the council or whatever. Therefore, each party uses the members that it has to the best effect to achieve that result. The parties are bound to fight among each other, and keep the whole place in disorder, to do better next time. That is not the way to get an effective organisation.
In that debate, the Minister went on to say:
The Government continue to attach a high priority to the principle of proportionality in Northern Ireland, as it provides the best mechanism for involving all major strands of constitutional political opinion in local government institutions.
What does the Minister mean by a "major strand"? What percentage of the electorate is a "major strand"? How does he propose to ensure that only constitutional political opinion succeeds in these circumstances? That is the problem that is exercising the minds of most right hon. and hon. Members, and not least those in the Northern Ireland Office.
The Minister said:
it is a question of implementing a system which maximises the effects of giving equitable representation to candidates supported by a substantial minority of the electorate.

The Minister is using the terms "major strand" and "substantial minority", and we must know what sort of figure he has in mind. I am sure that it is not a figment of his imagination. There must be some figure or percentage on which he bases his argument.
The Minister argued that it was
widely recognised in the theory of the STV system that that is best achieved in constituencies of five to seven seats. Restricting the grouping of wards also affords greater certainty about the size of electorates and about the degree of proportionality across the Province. The latitude in the 1972 legislation, which allowed for groups of four to eight wards, resulted in electoral areas comprising four wards being far from exceptional — as had been envisaged in the 1972 legislation"—
the Government always wanted five, six or seven-ward constituencies—
and accordingly the overall results of past local elections have not been as proportional as the system should have provided. That is why the terms of this order are different from those of 1972.
If that is translated into modern terms, it means that there have not been enough Republican or Alliance members elected in the past.
The plain truth is that the Government have set out, as the hon. Member for Mid-Worcestershire (Mr. Forth) put it, to achieve certain results.
The hon. Gentleman said:
An inescapable inference to be drawn from what my hon. Friend is saying is that the Government have in mind something which they consider desirable and that the number of wards has been chosen with that in view.
The Minister replied:
That is right. Proportional representation is designed to give the highest possible percentage of voters the election of a candidate of their choice.
The Government have set out to try to get a certain predetermined result. I did not think that that was what elections in the United Kingdom were about. I thought elections in the United Kingdom were to ensure that the majority will would prevail. However, the Minister, in reply to the debate, said:
Secondly, this Government are totally and absolutely opposed to everything that Sinn Fein stands for and we shall do our best to ensure that the aims that it seeks are not brought about. We absolutely detest the advocacy and means of violence."—[Official Report, 6 February 1984;Vol. 53, c.694–714.]
If my understanding of the Minister's words is correct, I am delighted that the Government are opposed to a United Ireland. If that is not what he meant on that occasion, perhaps he will be kind enough to tell us what he did mean. Perhaps the Government are merely opposed to the Sinn Fein-type Ireland that the IRA and its fellow travellers wish to create. I want to hear what the Minister has to tell us about the Government's view on that score.
If the Government are sincere and we are to take the Minister's words at face value, we can infer from that that the Government intend to ensure that Sinn Fein does not do all that well in the elections. Against that background, why have they taken the opposite approach? I assume that someone in the Northern Ireland Office has done his sums on ward groupings. I also assume that one of the items taken into account was the outcome of those elections. Although Sinn Fein has not always been all that prominent, people and parties that have the same attitude of mind have taken part in most of the elections, and have had people elected who are, in all but name, Sinn Fein and extreme Republican representatives.
I hope that the Minister will give us an undertaking to publish the headcount carried out when the sums were gone through. Was the headcount done only by the


Registrar of Births, Deaths and Marriages — which I very much doubt—or how much was done by the Chief Electoral Officer? We need to know the answer. How much of the headcount on an orange/green or Protestant/ Roman Catholic basis was carried out at the behest of the Northern Ireland Office before arriving at the ward groupings? The Minister may not as yet have seen the calculations, but perhaps he will find out exactly what happened in his Department, because he may be surprised.
The order will be passed tonight because the Government have a majority, and so they may be assured—as far as anyone can be—that the commissioner and his staff have ensured the maximum Sinn Fein representation. After all, the work has been done most admirably to produce exactly that result. Few hon. Members understand proportional representation, and that puts the Minister at a great disadvantage. He is dependent on the advice that he receives. Indeed, if he took ours, he might not make so many mistakes.
On page 23 of the report there is a most interesting table that sets out the various options in each local government area. First, there are seven local government districts with 15 seats: Limavady, Moyle, Larne, Magherafelt, Strabane, Banbridge and Carriekfergus. Therefore, one can only have groups of five. That is straightforward. Then Ballymoney and Cookstown have 16 seats, so it is five and five and six. Anything else is impossible. Antrim has 19 seats, so there are two possibilities there. Belfast has many possible options, ranging from 10 electoral areas to eight.
With the exception of Belfast and Newtownabbey, the option that has the maximum number of seven seats has been chosen. There is, indeed, one other exception, and that is Londonderry. It originally had two sevens, being the same size as Newry and Mourne with 30 seats. We could have had six fives there. In the Londonderry council area there were severe objections, and as a result one of the groupings was cut to make it six. Newry and Mourne have two sevens and Londonderry has one seven and three sixes. Lisburn has four sevens, Craigavon has three sevens, and so on.
That means that in each of those ward groupings a maximum of only 12·5 per cent. of votes cast is needed

for someone to be elected. In practice. it means that if someone gains 10 per cent. of the votes cast, he is almost certain to be elected.
The measure was designed to help minorities. The Government do not appear to have tumbled to the fact, but perhaps they have, that the minorities are not necessarily moderate, reasonable, useless minorities such as the alliance party. Some are violent and evil, such as Sinn Fein. The Government, the commissioner, the staff and all concerned with this miserable episode have done their best to ensure that Sinn Fein will do very well.
That is why, in referring to the speech by the hon. Member for Middlesbrough, I said that the results are foreseen. Any fool in Northern Ireland can foresee the results. I do not think that the Government, Ministers or their civil servants are fools. I think that they know exactly what they are doing. Actions speak louder than words, and we have had a lot of words.
I should like to ask the Minister once more a question that I asked in February last. Why do the Government want Sinn Fein to do well? What is the reason for that? That is the only conclusion to which any reasonable man who understands the facts on the ground can come, having looked at what has been done.
If the Government really want to defeat Sinn Fein, we would not have PR at all. Every Northern Ireland Member knows that. Those who like PR are not here to speak for it. We who oppose PR in this or any other form of proportional representation are here to speak against it. Our job is to defeat Sinn Fein in the coming election. We intend to do it. We intend to defeat the purposes of Sinn Fein. We intend to defeat what is to me and to every sensible, reasonable man in Northern Ireland the purpose of the Northern Ireland Office and of the Government.
We shall beat Sinn Fein. The electoral system and local government have been changed in Northern Ireland, but at the end of the day, the Unionist people still win elections. This party will be there to defend the Unionist position. We say, "We have beaten you before, and we will beat you again."

Orders of the Day — Northern Ireland (District Electoral Areas)

Mr. J. Enoch Powell: The House is much indebted to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for the indulgence on your part which enables us in debates upon orders to hear the succession of charming essays from the hon. Member for Middlesbrough (Mr. Bell) by which we are able to measure his progress in acquainting himself with some of the basic facts and some of the recent history of the Province of Northern Ireland.
The essay is one of the recognised methods of learning, and it is natural that the hon. Gentleman's contributions should take that form. I am sorry, however, that tonight, on a quick count among my hon. Friends, we were unable to allocate to him a mark higher than Beta minus. But we hope that he will do better on future occasions, and, as is said in other circumstances, we look forward to his future contributions.
The reason why my right hon. and hon. Friends and I shall vote against the order is not that we are critical of Sir Frank Harrison, the commissioner. Indeed, he showed considerable openness of mind, given the limitations within which he was obliged to act, in the number of changes which he introduced after hearing objections to his original proposals. I am all the more ready to depose that evidence, because one of them brought about a distinct improvement in the district electoral areas in one of the districts in my constituency.
The Minister may recall not merely the representations which were made to the Government in debate in February, when the guidelines were laid down, but that my hon. Friend the Member for Londonderry, East (Mr. Ross) and I waited upon him to point out to him at some length the importance of allowing the commissioner freedom to recommend district electoral areas with as few as four wards. Many of the objections to which my hon. Friend drew attention and many of the objections which will have a serious impact upon political organisation and the conduct of elections in Northern Ireland go back to that mistake. Four, five or six wards per area, as hon. Members on this bench recommended, has turned out in practice to have been the correct prescription for the formation of district electoral areas from wards.
I should like, before the debate ends, to convey to the Under-Secretary of State the reason why he and the Northern Ireland Office should learn by this experience and alter the guidelines on a future occasion.
I believe it is common ground that all of us, in all parts of the United Kingdom, wish to see a lively political life. Most of us indeed who are elected to the House depend upon the vitality of the organisations which serve the political point of view that we represent. Now, political organisation, which is at the heart of political action, is inevitably based upon electoral areas; for, after all, the first object of all political association is to win elections. Political association and activity will, therefore, base themselves upon the areas in which elections are to be held.
The constituency is the obvious major unit of political organisation, not only in Northern Ireland, but in the rest of the United Kingdom. In Northern Ireland, however,

because we are blessed with the curse of proportional representation, there is a further unit of great importance: for the sake of the operation of proportional representation, it is necessary that the wards should be grouped in certain numbers into district electoral areas. The real election takes place in the district electoral area: in fact, the district electoral area corresponds to what the constituency is for elections to this House. Consequently, the district electoral area is the vital unit of political organisation.
Unfortunately, the ward, because of proportional representation, has practically no meaning. It is little more than a convenient subdivision of the register of electors. It would be different if there were not merely one councillor per ward but one councillor for a ward, so that each community would be able readily to identify the person whom it elected, and elected councillors would have a manageable area comprising those to whom they were responsible and answerable. Because of proportional representation, alas, the ward does not exist for political purposes.
I now put forward the following proposition as self-evident: if possible, district electoral areas should be contained within the boundaries of constituencies; for it is clearly destructive of intelligent political organisation and action that there should be constant overlap between the organisations that band together to win and hold parliamentary seats and those that are concerned to constitute councils by winning district electoral areas. Unfortunately, the effect of the guidelines within which the commissioner was obliged to operate has been to force him — in many cases disastrously — to override constituency boundaries, so that overlap is more the rule than the exception.
I can speak with some personal knowledge and bitterness on this score. I have three district councils wholly or partly within my constituency. One of them is wholly within my constituency, providentially, and the commissioner was able to organise that district council so that no district electoral area strayed over the constituency boundary.
However, in the case of the other two councils, there are district electoral areas where political organisation for the electoral contest will have to be based upon two distinct parliamentary constituencies and two distinct political organisations. Surely that must be contrary to what the Government and all of us want to do — to stimulate active and intelligent political participation and organisation in Northern Ireland.
What is more, the overlaps have been destructive of the very terms of reference given to the commissioner. He was exhorted to pay account to the natural divisions of the country. Few natural divisions in Northern Ireland are more marked, or more historic, than that between the county of Down and the county of Armagh. The rift through which the Newry canal was constructed is visibly, as one approaches it, a division. The people are in fact different—I will not say which side I prefer—on either side of the boundary. As one crosses it, one is conscious of having moved into a different countryside and a different community. The people of Armagh are different and the people of County Down are different—and none the worse for that, in either case.
In one place, the commissioner was obliged to take one ward in my constituency, which is on the County Down side of the geographical divide, and combine it with six


other wards in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Newry and Armagh (Mr. Nicholson), to create a district electoral area called the Fews—actually it should be called the Many—extending from Newtown Hamilton on one side to the extremity of Donaghmore in County Down on the other. I know that the commissioner was obliged to do it, because I have tried every other possible numerical permutation to avoid it and found that it could not satisfactorily be done. Now that district electoral area is not merely unmanageable in the sense so graphically explained by my hon. Friend the Member for Londonderry, East (Mr. Ross); it is an absurdity, for Donaghmore, in every possible respect, belongs to County Down and to groupings that would be wholly within the constituency of South Down.
There is another factor that I must not refrain from mentioning. There is a Unionist majority in the ward of Donaghmore. If the commissioner were not above all suspicion, those who argued that the district electoral area of the Fews is a manifest piece of skulduggery would have some grounds for their suspicion. Nothing could be more satisfactory to my hon. Friend than the transfer of one of the jewels of my crown into a district electoral area in another part of the district of Newry and Mourne.
I have endeavoured to treat the matter with some lightness of touch, as the details of it might be disagreeable and tedious to those who have taken the trouble to attend the debate. However, in reality, something very serious lies behind all this. The drawing of constituency and electoral area boundaries is a serious matter. It is a serious matter—as I have endeavoured to prove to the Minister — for political life and for the vitality of political organisations. It can help it, it can make it, it can destroy it, it can take it to pieces. Those who contemplate many of the boundary changes brought about in the Province in the earlier part of the 1970s found it difficult to escape the notion that it was the deliberate intention to make a certain form of political life and organisation as far as possible impracticable.
That is one consideration that gives the drawing of boundaries its importance and solemnity. Boundaries are the basis of political association and therefore of the vitality of political life.
Secondly, under proportional representation, the drawing of boundaries and even more the grouping of wards in district electoral areas go far to predetermine the outcome of an election.
This is the point that the Minister made when my hon. Friend the Member for Londonderry East and I waited on him—the contention that in a district electoral area of only four wards some minority party—or splinter party rather — might fail to be represented. That is the one argument which was urged against what now proves to have been the correct prescription for the work of the commissioner.
Despite the fact that there will be a Division, I fear that, for this time round, we have had it. The importance of this debate is rather to bring home to the Minister and his advisers that the advice tendered to him by this party has been proved in practice to have been the right advice and that the advice to which he reverted—of a five to seven ward formula — was the wrong advice and will be harmful to politics in Northern Ireland and even harmful to the political cause which, not having quite suspicious a mind as my hon. Friend the Member for Londonderry,

East, I believe that neither the Minister nor probably any other hon. Member wishes to flourish. So please, do not let it happen again.

Mr. A. Cecil Walker: I support my right hon. Friend the Member for South Down (Mr. Powell) in his approach to the order, especially in regard to the parliamentary boundaries.
I had thought that in this review an opportunity would be taken to rationalise the boundaries anomaly and bring the position into line with what is generally accepted and expected in any other part of the United Kingdom. It is stated that parliamentary boundaries and their electoral lists are based on the local government boundaries that were established in 1972, but it is clear that parliamentary boundaries have been drawn contrary to existing local government boundaries. This has resulted in great confusion on the part of the electorate, and is admitted in the foreword to the provisional recommendations, where it is said that electors are now obliged to go to different polling stations for different elections. More important is the fact that neighbours with common social problems in the same local government area will have to resort to different Members of Parliament, because local government boundaries do not coincide with parliamentary constituencies.
It must be remembered that many of the electorate are elderly. Some are also confused. The illogicality of the boundaries can cause all sorts of problems and result in votes not being cast. It has been said that demographic movements have resulted in changes which, in some cases, now require district or ward boundary changes. The resulting boundaries will breach parliamentary boundaries. That result is guaranteed because of the time lag between the recommendations of different boundary commissioners. Such changes should not affect parliamentary boundaries.
The 1983 parliamentary election was based on a review of boundaries which were different in the preceding election. The commissoner should have been briefed to group wards into electoral areas which coincide with existing parliamentary boundaries. I see no significant difference between that direction and the one which the commissioner was given. He was brief to create
wards which people can recognise as being coherent units deserving separate and distinct representation reflecting differences in interest which are grouped together with other wards into a district which will provide them with services and facilities of Local Government".
I sometimes feel that Northern Ireland is treated differently, or even as a guinea pig.
The present systems, which have been foisted upon us, are anathema to the long-suffering electorate in Northern Ireland. Local councillors and other interested parties made representations to the commissioner during the public inquiry, and some of these representations are relevant to the situation in these areas. For example, reference was made to the grouping of wards and their corelation to each other in the context of the number of representatives. Concern was expressed that such groupings would not necessarily produce acceptable representations in the final analysis and that, in consequence, the electorate could suffer from the laziness or ineptitude of representatives who, by their inaction, would load their colleagues with the day-to-day problems connected with local government.
Concern was also expressed that the commissioner's proposed groupings were not in accordance with the general geographical boundaries. That gave rise to the suspicion that these boundaries had been gerrymandered in favour of minority populations, which under the iniquitous proportional representation system applicable to Northern Ireland would provide extra seats in excess of their percentage of the total population. Unfortunately, the commissioner, possibly because of the need for urgency in finalising his proposals, did not appear to be particularly keen to be drawn into an appeal on what were thought to be legitimate or pertinent grounds. Under such circumstances, I regret that I have no option but to oppose the order.

Mr. Clifford Forsythe: Like my colleagues, I am totally against proportional representation, on several grounds. We in Northern Ireland are not treated in the same manner as the rest of the United Kingdom. In Great Britain there is first-past-the-post, whereas in Northern Ireland there is PR. It is a case of "Don't do as I do, but do as I say". No parent would set such an example.
The ratepayer cannot identify his representative. There are several representatives in a DEA, and it is possible for a person to be elected, to do nothing, to keep his head down and to be re-elected. He can tell all and sundry that he did this, that or the other, whereas he probably did nothing.
It would be more reasonable if the STV system operated on a ward basis, so that after an election we could say, "That representative represents this ward." That would be the best of both worlds.
I agree with my hon. Friends who have spoken about DEAs crossing constituency boundaries. My hon. Friend the Member for Antrim, East (Mr. Beggs) and I have a DEA which crosses our boundaries and causes quite a problem for party organisation. Had a DEA consisted of four, five or six wards instead of five, six or seven, that problem would not have arisen. However, it was not the commissioner's fault that he was working within a straitjacket.
DEAs now have names, whereas previously they were numbered one, two,, three and so on. This can be misleading. For example, in the borough of Newtownabbey there is a DEA called Antrim Line.
The Antrim Line is a road that runs out of Glengormley. Inside the district electoral area there is Collinbridge, which is in Whitewell; Glebe, which is more or less at Carnmoney hill; and High Town, which is the High Town road that runs over Cavehill into Belfast. That is known as the Antrim Line.
There is a problem in Newtownabbey where the town of Ballyclare, which formerly had its own council, always regards itself as different from the remainder of Newtownabbey. It is known as the capital of Newtownabbey. Now there is a DEA called Ballyclare, which also includes Ballynure, which is in the direction of Larne, Doagh, which is towards Antrim and Mallusk, which is almost in Glengormley. How can we expect ratepayers to associate with those DEAs?
Time is running out and I do not wish to prolong the debate. I wish to give the Minister time to reply to some

of the questions raised. Needless to say, I am opposed to the order and will vote against it with my right hon. and hon. Friends.

Mr. Scott: With the leave of the House, I shall reply briefly to some of the points that have been raised, without going too far down the road that has been pursued by many hon. Members of, in effect, re-running our debate of February, which set out the constraints and parameters within which Sir Frank had to conduct his work. It has been widely recognised throughout the House that he conducted his work with skill, judgment and commitment. Indeed, the hon. Member for Middlesbrough (Mr. Bell) and other hon. Members paid tribute to him.
Anyone who sets his hand to drawing new electoral boundaries is unlikely to achieve universal acclaim. That has become clear in what has been said in the debate. It is my belief that Sir Frank, his assistants and his staff did an excellent job in coming up with the proposals.
The hon. Member for Londonderry, East (Mr. Ross) returned to the question of the number of wards in an electoral area. It is one example — and there will be others during my remarks—of when one has to recall how exhaustively this question was pursued, both on the Floor of the House and elsewhere, during the passage of the order in February last year.
Schedule 3 to the 1984 order required the commissioner to recommend electoral areas consisting of between five and seven wards, and I made it clear last February—and I make no apology for reiterating my belief—that the purpose of that provision was to ensure that the system of proportional representation operates as effectively as possible within electoral areas of manageable size.
I fully understand that the hon. Member for Londonderry, East and his colleagues are opposed to proportional representation root and branch. I believe that much of the hon. Gentleman's criticism flows from the fundamental belief that proportional representation is wrong in principle and wrong for Northern Ireland, and he developed his argument on that basis. I do not object to his doing that, but we should be clear that many of his detailed criticisms flow from that difference in principle between the Government and those on the Ulster Unionist Benches.

Mr. Roy Beggs: Does the Minister accept that we have had to live through and practise our responsibilities under a system of proportional representation? We have carried out our duties to the electorate and have the experience to advise the Government. There is no such experience on the mainland.

Mr. Scott: Those who have been responsible for administration in Northern Ireland since it became necessary to introduce direct rule also have experience of the proportional system. It remains our convinced belief that a system of proportionality in Northern Ireland local government is essential if there is to be proper representation of differing opinions in the Province. That is the Government's considered judgment. We differ on the matter—it is as simple as that.
The hon. Member for Londonderry, East, the right hon. Member for South Down (Mr. Powell) and others set out, not surprisingly, to second-guess Sir Frank's judgment about the size and nature of some of the groupings that he


has made. All these matters need fine judgment. In the way that he conducted the process, Sir Frank showed that he was open to argument, but at the end of the day his judgment has to hold sway. I hope that hon. Members who have argued against that will forgive me if I prefer to accept Sir Frank's judgment to theirs on these matters.
It would be intolerable if, having had such a process, Ministers attempted to second-guess Sir Frank and to impose other proposals upon the people of Northern Ireland. With his unrivalled experience of local government in the Province over 10 years, he is uniquely qualified to carry out the task. It would be wrong for Ministers to attempt to alter his judgment.
In setting out the framework in which Sir Frank has to operate the Government are not trying to come up with some pre-ordained result for this election, or any other. We are not trying to secure representation for any particular group or to produce any predetermined result.
I repeat that we reject everything that Sinn Fein stands for and its methods of operation, but we have a system of proportional representation in Northern Ireland because we believe that if we deprived substantial sections of the community in Northern Ireland of proper representation within the local government system we should be acting against the interests of democratic local government.

Mr. William Ross: The Minister has given a substantial description again. Will he please qualify it?

Mr. Scott: I shall not go down that road again. That is not a matter for Ministers to decide. Were we to deprive one-third of the people of Northern Ireland of representation we would be criticised, but I shall not discuss where that point becomes a matter of substance. We decided on the size of the groupings of the wards on the basis that it would provide proper representation for the constitutional minorities in Northern Ireland. I believe that what we propose will have that effect and I stand by it.
The right hon. Member for South Down returned to a point that he raised in February about the unfortunate fact that some boundaries cross constituency boundaries. I can do no more than repeat what I said on that occasion. Because of the sequence in which boundary reviews have been carried out we have encountered anomalies, but I hope that in future it will be possible, as we re-order the sequence of the boundary reviews for local and parliamentary constituencies, to obviate that problem. I gave that assurance of our intention to the right hon. Gentleman on 6 February.
I must tell the hon. Member for Belfast, North (Mr. Walker) that I cannot comment on why the Commissioner did or did not feel able to accept particular arguments. It was clearly right that where conflicting arguments were put to him he had to exercise his own judgment. Not everyone's suggestion can be the preferred solution. I certainly think that in accepting, as he did, that in no fewer than 15 of the 26 districts, the provisional recommendations should be amended in the light of recommendations made to him, he approached his task with an open mind and was anxious to respond, where possible, to those local representations. I am satisfied that the exercise was carried out in a way that offered the maximum opportunity for informed public debate. Many bodies, individuals and representatives of political parties took advantage of it.
The hon. Member for Antrim, South (Mr. Forsythe) criticised particular representations that affected the part

of Northern Ireland that he represents. Obviously, I am not as familiar as he is with the details of the points he raised, although I am tolerably familiar with his constituency and especially with Ballyclare.
It is self evident that any proposed pattern of electoral boundaries leaves scope for endless argument about alternative schemes that might have been proposed. That is why the way in which this was carried out is a powerful argument for us to accept the judgment of Sir Frank Harrison. That is what we are debating tonight, not the constraints or parameters within which he had to operate. The House decided on those in February 1984. Today we are debating his judgments. We wish to see that they are put into operation as soon as possible so that all those engaged in elections in May will know where they are and can begin to make preparations on the basis of the order, which I commend to the House.

Question put:—

The House divided: Ayes 121, Noes 6.

Division No. 73]
[11.26 pm


AYES


Alexander, Richard
Hargreaves, Kenneth


Amess, David
Harris, David


Arnold, Tom
Hayes, J.


Ashby, David
Hayward, Robert


Atkinson, David (B'm'th E)
Heathcoat-Amory, David


Baker, Nicholas (N Dorset)
Heddle, John


Batiste, Spencer
Hind, Kenneth


Beaumont-Dark, Anthony
Howarth, Alan (Stratf'd-on-A)


Beith, A. J.
Howarth, Gerald (Cannock)


Bellingham, Henry
Jessel, Toby


Benyon, William
Johnston, Russell


Biffen, Rt Hon John
Jones, Robert (W Herts)


Blackburn, John
Key, Robert


Boscawen, Hon Robert
King, Roger (B'ham N'field)


Bottomley, Peter
Knight, Gregory (Derby N)


Bottomley, Mrs Virginia
Knowles, Michael


Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)
Knox, David


Brandon-Bravo, Martin
Lang, Ian


Bright, Graham
Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)


Brooke, Hon Peter
Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark


Bruinvels, Peter
Lester, Jim


Burt, Alistair
Macfarlane, Neil


Butcher, John
Maclean, David John


Butterfill, John
Major, John


Carlisle, Rt Hon M. (W'ton S)
Mather, Carol


Carttiss, Michael
Moynihan, Hon C.


Cash, William
Newton, Tony


Channon, Rt Hon Paul
Ottaway, Richard


Chope, Christopher
Pawsey, James


Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)
Roberts, Wyn (Conwy)


Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)
Roe, Mrs Marion


Coombs, Simon
Rowe, Andrew


Cope, John
Sainsbury, Hon Timothy


Couchman, James
Sayeed, Jonathan


Currie, Mrs Edwina
Scott, Nicholas


Dorrell, Stephen
Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)


Dover, Den
Skeet, T. H. H.


Dunn, Robert
Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)


Durant, Tony
Soames, Hon Nicholas


Fallon, Michael
Speed, Keith


Favell, Anthony
Spencer, Derek


Fenner, Mrs Peggy
Stern, Michael


Forth, Eric
Stevens, Lewis (Nuneaton)


Freeman, Roger
Stevens, Martin (Fulham)


Gale, Roger
Stewart, Andrew (Sherwood)


Galley, Roy
Sumberg, David


Garel-Jones, Tristan
Taylor, John (Solihull)


Gregory, Conal
Terlezki, Stefan


Griffiths, E. (B'y St Edm'ds)
Thompson, Donald (Calder V)


Griffiths, Peter (Portsm'th N)
Thompson, Patrick (N'ich N)


Ground, Patrick
Thurnham, Peter


Hamilton, Hon A. (Epsom)
Tracey, Richard


Hampson, Dr Keith
Twinn, Dr Ian


Hanley, Jeremy
Waddington, David






Walden, George
Whitney, Raymond


Wallace, James
Wilkinson, John


Waller, Gary
Wood, Timothy


Wardle, C. (Bexhill)
Yeo, Tim


Watson, John



Watts, John
Tellers for the Ayes:


Wells, Bowen (Hertford)
Mr. Michael Neubert and


Wheeler, John
Mr. Peter Lloyd.


Whitfield, John





NOES


Beggs, Roy
Walker, Cecil (Belfast N)


Maginnis, Ken



Molyneaux, Rt Hon James
Tellers for the Noes:


Nicholson, J.
Mr William Ross and


Powell, Rt Hon J. E. (S Down)
Mr. Clifford Forsythe.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,
That the draft District Electoral Areas (Northern Ireland) Order 1985, which was laid before this House on 19th December, be approved.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Motion made,
That, at Tomorrow's sitting, the Motion relating to Supplementary Estimates 1984–85 may be proceeded with, though opposed, for three hours after it has been entered upon and Mr. Speaker shall then put any questions necessary to dispose of proceedings thereon, if not previously concluded.—[Mr. Lennox-Boyd.]

Hon. Members: Object.

Orders of the Day — Thorney Farm, Iver

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Lennox-Boyd.]

Mr. Tim Smith: I am glad to have the opportunity to raise in the House the matter of the infilling of land at Thorney farm, Iver.
Iver is under attack from every quarter. A pretty Buckinghamshire village is being turned into an extension of London suburbia. Iver village is a conservation area. The whole parish supposedly enjoys the protection of the green belt, and part of it lies within the Colne valley regional park. But that has not impeded the planners. The development of Iver has been a classic example of Hutber's law — "progress means deterioration." The object of this Adjournment debate is to sound a warning to the Buckinghamshire county council and to the Government. The people of Iver have had enough.
Through the parish run both the M4 and the M25. Within two miles of Iver church there are 14 sites at which either gravel and clay are currently being extracted or rubbish is being dumped. Not surprisingly, parts of Iver's landscape bear more resemblance to the moon's surface than to this planet's.
Now we are told there is to be a motorway service area at Iver and a British Rail park-and-ride, and the London underground may be extended to Iver if the decision is taken to build a fifth terminal at Heathrow, in which case it may also be necessary to move the Perry Oaks sewage works to south Iver.
It is all a vicious downward spiral in the quality of the local environment. The starting point is a genuinely rural environment. There are a number of viable farms. Then along comes a motorway. That has two effects. First, farms are sliced into two and land is lost. They become either less viable or totally unviable. Secondly, gravel is extracted from adjoining farm land and the land deteriorates. Although it remains green belt, it is soon being described as derelict. At this point, the logic follows through and the planners say, "Oh well, if it is derelict land, we might as well build a motorway service area or a sewage works on it."
Thorney farm is a classic example. Its history reflects the history of the area. Originally it was good quality farmland. The site was worked for sand and gravel for the construction of the M4, nearly 25 years ago. It was restored at low level. The land was used for cattle grazing, but most recently for horse grazing.
On 28 March 1983 the planning sub-committee of the Buckinghamshire county council considered an application by Cementation Construction to excavate clay from the site for use in the M25 contracts. Consent was refused on grounds which included the following:
The working of this site would further extend the area of disturbed land in this area which is now successfully recovering from a prolonged history of mineral working.
The site is in the Colne valley regional park. It is the policy of the local authorities that waste disposal operations should be brought to a halt in the park as soon as possible so that a park environment can be established quickly.
On 28 March 1984—precisely one year later—S. Grundon (Ewelme) Ltd. submitted an application to fill the site with approximately 400,000 cubic metres of


industrial, commercial, domestic and civic amenity waste and inert material and to restore the land to agricultural use. This was considered by the planning sub-committee at its meeting on 4 June 1984. South Bucks district council objected. It gave the following reasons:
(1) The site was partially restored with inert material; the free drainage of the site should have been an integral part of that restoration programme.
(2) The site will be used for wholly imported waste and will not serve any local need.
(3) This district"—
the South Bucks council district—
taking into account Hyde Farm, has already met its obligation in respect of the provisions of the waste disposal plan.
(4) The effect of the additional traffic generation not only on the direct neighbourhood but also on the dwellings in Ritchings Way, will be detrimental to the amenities of the occupiers thereof by reason of increased noise and dust.
(5) The tipping on this site could be prejudicial to the completion of work on other sites in this district, for example, Colnbrook bypass and, indeed, elsewhere.
Therefore, the South Bucks district council objected, and so did the Iver parish council, which said:
In the past this site had a reputation as an example of the worst kind of restoration at the time of working and should never have been allowed to be restored to its present condition. However, over the years it has developed into a natural part of the landscape, accepted by the local people and has become a habitat for various flora, birds and insects, etc.
This area is under great pressure from the M25 workings and the introduction of the volume of traffic anticipated in the application would be intolerable, especially during the M25 construction period.
The Parish Council would object strongly to the application and would prefer to see the site allowed to continue in its present state.
The county engineer confirmed that there would be no domestic waste from Buckinghamshire and very little, if any, civic amenity waste. The planning officer said that he was not convinced that the proposals would offer a better guarantee of improved cultivation and crop yields than agricultural improvement of the existing restored land. His recommendation to the sub-committee was that they should refuse consent because
it has not been shown that the proposals are necessary or desirable to bring about an improvement of the agricultural land.
He also said that the proposal would prejudice the early implementation of restoration proposals for the Colne valley regional park and perpetuate intrusive tipping operations in one of the most sensitive and damaged parts of the park.
At the request of the applicant it was agreed to defer a decision, and it was next considered on 24 September. This time the planning officer found the arguments for and against the proposal finely balanced, but, on balance, he favoured the restoration scheme. Planning permission was accordingly granted. That I consider to have been a very remarkable volte face on the part of the planning sub-committee of the county council.
As a result of that decision on 27 September, Mr. Brian Learmount, the chairman of the Iver parish council, wrote to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment. He pointed out that the county council had failed to buy the land at auction and it had gone instead to a waste disposal company. He said:
This last factor raises the inevitable question in the minds of local residents. What is wrong with local planning when a major waste disposal company can confidently afford to pay well above current prices at an auction of agricultural land in obvious

anticipation of an approval to fill the land? An approval which it should not get — but has achieved easily in spite of concerted local objection.
My hon. Friend wrote to me on 1 November to say that his Department did not consider that this matter raised issues of wider than local concern such as would justify intervention by the Secretary of State, and I understand that decision.
That, as far as this planning application is concerned, is that. The infilling of the land will go ahead. For more than two years, there will be more than 78 vehicle movements a day, five and a half days a week. When one remembers that there are 14 other sites in Iver, imagines the total number of daily lorry movements and then recalls that on top of that the M25 is still under construction, one will begin to understand why the residents of Iver are at the end of their tether. They have been stoutly defended by their parish and district councillors and by their county councillor, Mrs. Ros Wingrove, but they have encountered a brick wall at County hall. That is why I now add my voice to theirs and say that enough is enough.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Neil Macfarlane): The constituents of my hon. Friend the Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Smith) who live in the Ritchings park and Iver area will be grateful to him for raising an important local matter this evening. As he said, this matter was originally brought to the attention of my Department by the Iver parish council, which wrote asking that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State intervene on behalf of Iver residents and call in the planning application for investigation. Ritchings Park Residents Association has also expressed concern about the application in a letter about several planning matters in the area. The House has heard from my hon. Friend about the intrusion and the possible impact of some of these activities, which include the impact of the M25, the possibility of having a motorway service area sited near Iver station, and the green belt in general. All these factors were brought to the attention of my right hon. Friend and myself.
The application sought planning permission to fill slightly less than 13 hectares of land at Thorney farm, Iver with industrial, commercial, domestic and civic amenity wastes and inert material and restore the land to an agricultural use. My hon. Friend has acknowledged that Parliament has entrusted to local planning authorities the responsibility for the day-to-day administration of development control within their areas. The legislation governing the allocation of development control functions in England and Wales outside Greater London is contained in schedule 16 to the Local Government Act 1972, as amended by section 86 of the Local Government, Planning and Land Act 1980, and in the Town and Country Planning General Development Order 1977, as amended by the Town and Country Planning General Development (Amendment) Order 1980. Schedule 16 to the 1972 Act identifies two seperate groups of local planning authorities whose duty it is to determine planning applications.
I make no apology for going into this matter in some detail, because it may help my hon. Friend and some of his constituents to understand some of the background to the way in which the constitutional arrangements have been devised by the House. These are, first, district


planning authorities, which are responsible for determining the majority of planning applications, and secondly county planning authorities, which retain that responsibility in respect of certain specified matters, such as development relating to minerals and development which is partly within a national park. My right hon. Friend has the power, under section 35 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1971, to call in any planning application for his own determination.
We are, and I suspect that I take my hon. Friend with me, anxious not to weaken overly the independence of local authorities by intervening in the exercise of their responsibilities. The power of call in is therefore used only in special circumstances where wider issues of national or regional importance are involved. The Town and Country Planning (Prescription of County Matters) Regulations 1980 prescribed the use of land or the carrying out of operations in or on land for the deposit of refuse or waste materials to be a county matter for the purposes of paragraph 32 of schedule 16 to the 1972 Act.
The effect of these regulations is to transfer to county planning authorities in England the functions of determining certain applications made under the Town and Country Planning Act 1971 and to give county planning authorities power to make certain orders and serve certain notices under that Act where the application, order or notice relates to waste disposal. It is, thus, for the county planning authority to decide in the first instance whether any particular development of the kind referred to by my hon. Friend may be permitted or not, having regard to the provisions of the approved development plan, together with any other material considerations.
The particular application with which we are concerned was submitted to the district planning authority — the South Bucks district council—but, in accordance with the regulations, was transferred to the county planning authority, Buckinghamshire county council, for determination.
My hon. Friend has given the House a graphic description of the surrounding countryside at Iver, its conservation status and the general level of activities which have gone on in the area, which I suspect have gone on in many home counties not many miles from here. The whole area is in the metropolitan green belt as defined in the approved Buckinghamshire county structure plan, and it will be evident that the area is very sensitive in planning terms. Nevertheless, the principles that I have outlined still apply, and where planning applications are made they are for the appropriate local planning authority to consider and determine. We would not wish to intervene unless it could be shown that the matter was of more than local importance.
The Thorney farm site itself has been within an area designated as green belt for many years and the draft local plan for the district proposes to continue this designation. Government policy on green belts is set out in my Department's circulars 42/55, 50/57 and as recently as 14/84, and is aimed at checking the unrestricted sprawl of built-up areas, safeguarding the surrounding countryside from further encroachment, and assisting in urban regeneration. The latest of these circulars points out that local authorities can help to ensure the future agricultural, recreational and amenity value of green belt land by

working with landowners to enhance those areas of land lying within the green belt which are suffering from disuse or neglect.
The approved structure plan for Buckinghamshire includes green belt policies which are compatible with the general aims of the green belt, but which allow some exceptions to the general presumption against development. These exceptions include development essential to the use of land for agriculture, and the proposed development at Thorney farm—which does not involve the erection of buildings — is not incompatible with green belt policy. One could not therefore justify calling in the application on green belt grounds.
Although the decision whether to permit the infilling of the site with waste is clearly one of importance and raises many questions, such as its effect on people living in nearby housing, the possibility of affecting water courses and the consequences of generating extra traffic, these are all of local significance. I understand, from the information provided by the correspondents I have mentioned, that Buckinghamshire county council found the issues for and against the proposal, as my hon. Friend said, to be finely balanced. Apart from the applicant's case, it had before it five letters of objection to the proposal. I am told that the council consulted widely, and I am informed that comments were received from the county engineer, the Thames water authority, Rickmansworth water company, the Colne Valley park standing conference, the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, the Council for the Protection of Rural England, Hillingdon borough council, the Health and Safety Executive, the Civil Aviation Authority, the British Airports Authority, the Central Electricity Generating Board and South Bucks district council. As my hon. Friend said, the last named objected to the proposal.
Some of the other consultees suggested the imposition of conditions on any planning permission granted. The council, having considered these views, resolved to grant planning permission. There was and is nothing to indicate that matters of more than local importance are involved, and accordingly my Department decided not to intervene. This decision was conveyed to Iver parish council, which had asked for our intervention, in my Department's letter of 25 October 1984. I understand that Buckinghamshire county council granted planning permission for the proposed development on 2 November 1984.
There is no right of appeal for third parties once a planning application has been decided. The effect of the planning legislation is to take away from individuals the right to develop land as they wish. Parliament therefore considered it necessary to give an applicant a right of appeal if his application for permission to develop was rejected. The current provision is section 36 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1971. Successive Governments have taken the view, however, that it would be quite wrong, and unfair to the applicant, to afford to third parties a right of appeal, and thus put the development, once permitted, in jeopardy, perhaps for quite a long time, while the objections of third parties were considered afresh. However, should any person affected by the council's decision feel that he has suffered as the result of maladministration by the council, he has the right to refer the matter to the Local Government Ombudsman.
Under section 276 of the 1971 Act, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has the power to revoke a planning permission by the making of a revocation order.


The power is rarely used, however, and would be justified only in the most exceptional circumstances, since it would render the local planning authority liable to the payment of compensation or possibly result in its being required to purchase the land, perhaps to the detriment of local ratepayers. While my hon. Friend may consider the circumstances of this case to be wholly exceptional, I regret that I could not recommend revocation in this case on the information currently available. I must stand by my

view that this matter is purely of local significance and that the local planning authority has exercised its statutory powers in deciding the matter as it thinks fit.
I hope my hon. Friend will feel that I have outlined the constitutional arrangements that the House has seen fit to pass so that those in south Buckinghamshire, Iver and Ritchings understand some of the background that makes this very much a local issue.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at five minutes to Twelve o'clock.